Sewage Pollution: Lakes and Rivers
 - Question

Baroness Quin: To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent meetings they have had with environmental organisations to discuss measures to reduce sewage pollution in lakes and rivers.

Lord Douglas-Miller: My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Defra Ministers and officials consult extensively and routinely with a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental organisations, on this very important issue. For example, since March my officials have met with Surfers Against Sewage, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. We all agree that the current volume of sewage being discharged into our waters is unacceptable. Reducing sewage pollution in British lakes and rivers remains a top priority for the Government.

Baroness Quin: My Lords, since the House last debated this subject, there have been reports that sewage discharges have doubled in many of our rivers over the last year and that England’s largest lake, Windermere, has a very bad pollution problem. There have even been warnings to the Oxford and Cambridge boat crews about the health risks of the water of the River Thames. Given recent reports and publications, does the Minister have urgent plans to meet the Rivers Trust, Friends of the Earth and Sustain to review their recent findings and discuss urgent measures and long-term strategy?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I assure the House that the Government are taking huge steps to improve the quality of our waterways. We have driven environmentally sensitive farming through the environmental land management schemes to reduce pollution from the agricultural sector, introduced a range of new targets and laws, including 100% monitoring of storm overflows, increased Environment Agency resources for inspections and introduced new legislation to curb dividends and bonuses. We have created a water restoration fund and fast-tracked £180 million of new funding to improve infrastructure this year. Perhaps most importantly, we have also created a long-term vision through our Plan for Water, which marks a step change in our approach and will see £60 billion of investment into infrastructure over the next 25 years. Notwithstanding that, as I said in opening, we have met an enormous number of individuals,  environmental groups and interested parties, including the Rivers Trust, which the noble Baroness mentioned. I have met that organisation personally on a number of occasions, although not specifically on this issue.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a sea change happened when the legal advice from the Environment Agency was made mandatory? Will the Government agree to accord the same legal status to advice from water companies on when it is unsafe for pipes to be connected to the existing sewage works of new build, including major developments of up to 300? When will the Government bring forward regulations to end the automatic right to connect and a mandatory requirement for SUDS, which will ensure that many sewage works work properly and the sewage does not enter lakes, rivers and the sea?

Lord Douglas-Miller: My noble friend raises a very good point; the water companies are consulted on these issues on a regular basis.

Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I think the Minister just said that there is 100% monitoring of storm overflows, but my understanding is that, whereas the quality of water coming into the rivers from sewage plants is indeed monitored, outflows from the combined sewage overflows are not completely monitored and should be. That still needs further monitoring. Will the Minister meet with the Environment Agency and suggest that it accelerates the programme of installing monitoring of the combined sewage overflows?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Duke has a profound knowledge of this issue, so I will bow to that on this occasion. I commit to speaking to the Environment Agency on this issue and will take that point forward.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, there should be a general principle of transparency and openness where water companies are concerned. A tribunal recently overturned the ICO’s decision to support a water company’s attempt to withhold sewage flow data. It is unlikely that water companies will publish information unless forced to do so. Will the Minister change Ofwat’s strategic statement to make it clear that transparency—the routine publication of sewage data—is a condition of licensing?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I will certainly commit to taking the noble Baroness’s suggestion back to the department.

Lord Watts: My Lords, have not the regulator and Ministers allowed the water companies to rip off the general public for the last 13 years? Can the Minister guarantee that no water company will be nationalised, and that they will wait for them to be bankrupt and then take them into public ownership?

Lord Douglas-Miller: My Lords, the Government are committed to a system of independent economic regulation and have no plans to bring the water companies  into public ownership. Since privatisation, the private water sector model has unlocked around £215 billion of investment and delivered a wide range of benefits, including a fivefold decrease in supply interruptions to customers and a reduction in leakages by one third.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that much of the pollution of many rivers emanates from the effluent from chicken farms? What specific targets do the Government have in mind to reduce this, and will they take legislative action to ensure that they are binding and produce the results necessary?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Lord is quite right: there is a significant issue with chicken manure in the Wye valley. There has recently been a proposal to put together a Wye river plan, and I will ensure that this goes ahead.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, is it beyond an advanced country such as this to have an ambition and a determination to have zero leakage of sewage into our rivers? Have the Government got such an ambition and a plan? If so, I would be interested to know.

Lord Douglas-Miller: Yes. I point the noble Baroness to the plan for water, which lays out very clearly the 25-year strategy to reduce storm overflows to zero, and the investment plan that goes with that.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, for the last couple of years the Government have talked a lot about all the action they have been taking, but the situation seems to be getting worse. How is all the monitoring that is happening actually going to be used to drive forward change and reduction at last?

Lord Douglas-Miller: Regarding one of the issues the noble Baroness raises, we now have a lot more information available to us to look at. When we did not have storm overflow discharge information, we were ignorant of the amount of sewage that was going into our rivers, lakes and other waterways. If you look at the results for the bathing water test, for example, you can see a significant improvement over the last 15 years because of all the measures we put in.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Does my noble friend not recognise that we will make no progress on this matter until the directors of the water companies are held personally responsible and they are fined, instead of the consumer having to pick up the cost of the fine?

Lord Douglas-Miller: My noble friend is quite right, and that is why the Government have taken a number of actions recently to introduce restrictions on dividends and bonuses. I will take his point about personal responsibility back to the department.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of River Action, which is committed to cleaning up our rivers. The Minister said that it is a top priority for the Government, and I assure him that, on doorsteps and on the streets, it is also a top priority for people—for voters. The issue of public ownership keeps coming up. The first time a water company fails—for example, Thames Water—why not take it over, load the debt into the company so that it can gradually pay off its own debt and ensure that no dividends are paid out?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Baroness raises a very interesting prospect, which I will consider carefully and take back to the department.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the River Wye. The great news is that a citizen science army of people has been monitoring the whole of that catchment area. Do the Government encourage that model? If so, how will they encourage the Environment Agency to spread that great exercise to other catchments in the country?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The River Wye action plan, which the noble Lord refers to, is firmly supported by the Government. Any citizen science groups are very welcome to interact with the Environment Agency at any time.

Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures
 - Question

Baroness Willis of Summertown: To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in exploring how best the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework can be incorporated into UK policy and legislation in line with their commitment in the 2023 Green Finance Strategy.

Baroness Willis of Summertown: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my declaration of interests in the register.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, the Government remain a big supporter and funder of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. At COP 26, the UK backed the International Sustainability Standards Board to bring much-needed harmonisation to global sustainability reporting. I am pleased that the ISSB recently confirmed that it will explore a nature standard, drawing on the work of the TNFD. The Government have established a framework for once that standard is developed to assess the ISSB’s standards for suitability in the UK context.

Baroness Willis of Summertown: I thank the Minister for his response, but I worry that we are just not moving fast enough. For example, last week the Green Finance Institute published a report that found that UK firms are now highly exposed to nature risk and that nature degradation could slow down our GDP, with an estimated 12% loss in the near term. Putting that into context, that is a greater drop than we saw during the Covid pandemic. Does the Minister agree that ambitious policy is urgently needed on this, as well as mandatory disclosures against the TNFD, to enable UK companies to understand better their impacts on and risks from the environment, particularly nature and the ecosystem services that it provides?

Lord Benyon: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Assessing the Materiality of Nature-Related Financial Risks for the UK is an outstanding report, which needs to be read by chairmen of risk companies all over the world. It identifies precisely that this problem is not just about the environment but about risk. The net-zero economy grew by 9% last year. The value of net-zero technologies is now £74 billion, and the same will happen for nature. Therefore, there is an economic imperative as well as one that should drive us because we need to do the right thing for nature.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the UK was an early adopter of the TNFD framework, and it is great that more 300 businesses have now signalled their intention to sign up. What actions are the Government undertaking to promote and champion the framework internationally, particularly at key global functions such as the G7 and the G20 summits this year?

Lord Benyon: Climate and nature finance are raised at all those fora. The most important thing is that the Government have put a large amount of money in. We have backed the Green Finance Institute, a wonderful organisation, with £4.8 million to do a number of different pieces of work for us. This is being talked about in all sorts of fora and was mentioned last week at the World Bank spring meetings. It is now embedded in how risk is talked about as well as in how Governments are supporting a global endeavour to get some universal baseline which companies can understand and which is not overburdensome but which makes them look at their supply chains.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I want to ask the Minister specifically about financing for deforestation. The green finance strategy committed the Government to organising some round tables to discuss how to tackle this problem. Can the Minister update me as to how those round tables are going and what the outputs are?

Lord Benyon: There is a lot of talking about it but there is also a lot of action. Any day now, we will publish our forest risk commodities regulation, which will be debated by this House and will be an effective way of making sure that consumers here know that they are not using commodities that will result in rainforests being destroyed. However, there is a lot more to be done. I give the example of the Congo  Basin, where I was recently. The UK is a major funder towards protecting that extraordinary, vast ecosystem which if it was allowed to collapse would impoverish all sub-Saharan Africa. It is really important that we work internationally on these matters.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Does the noble Lord know how many UK entities or investors have already signed up to the framework and are making progress towards the appropriate disclosures?

Lord Benyon: I do. At the TNFD’s early adopters moment at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, 320 institutions from 46 countries publicly confirmed their commitment to adopt the TNFD recommendations. Of those early adopters, 46 were UK- headquartered organisations, which is more than in France, Germany and the United States combined.

Baroness Northover: ShareAction has reported on insurance companies. The insurance industry is obviously very big here in London, but the report shows that they are very weak across this sector, despite some of the things that they have been saying. Does the noble Lord agree that the insurance industry should be brought into this, and that they need to disclose in the way that other businesses are expected to do?

Lord Benyon: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. A sector whose currency is risk should be at the forefront of this. This is about making sure that investments of whatever form are investable, and if an insurance company is not thinking about that, it is way behind the curve. This will not just be imposed on them; they would need to do it even if we were not pushing it, and insurance companies are key.

Chemicals Strategy
 - Question

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the chemicals strategy to which they committed in their 25-year environment plan of January 2018.

Lord Douglas-Miller: My Lords, protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals is a priority of the Government. The Government will meet their commitments on chemicals set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. The short delay in publishing the chemicals strategy is due to the new Secretary of State being more ambitious with its scope. We continue to engage regularly with industry, we have a draft strategy just here, right behind me—I do not want to do a spoiler alert—and we aim to publish it very shortly.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, it is now over six years since the chemicals strategy was first promised, to set out the UK’s approach post Brexit to ensure that chemicals are safely used and managed, with the promise of a world-class system. However, this month, Hazards magazine published data on workplace exposure limits for chemicals, which found that not a single new protective workplace exposure limit has been introduced into Britain since the UK left the EU. Worryingly, in 10 instances, the British standard was weaker than the new EU occupational exposure limit. Can the Minister confirm that when the strategy is finally published, it will urgently address this in order to reassure our British workers?

Lord Douglas-Miller: This is a complex area. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s thoughts and will take them back to the department to see whether we can get that included if it is not already there.

Lord Fox: My Lords, the Minister characterised the delay with the strategy as a short delay. Let us talk about another delay—the delay in publishing the 2023-24 UK REACH work programme. The Minister is relatively new and will not be aware of the saga of his department’s regulating and authorising the use of chemicals. The Minister sitting beside him, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has suffered it rather more. That annual work programme was published 10 months late. This is a vital document for the chemical industries to work out what they need to do to meet safety and regulatory concerns. Will the Minister promise that the 2024-25 report, which is due in the summer, will be published on time?

Lord Douglas-Miller: Again, the noble Lord raises a very good point. This is serious stuff which needs to be adhered to in great detail, so I will take his comments back and ensure that we strive much harder this year to get that report out on time.

Lord Trees: My Lords, antimicrobial resistance is a major global health problem, including in the UK. What are His Majesty’s Government doing regarding surveillance for antibiotics and their residues in aqueous environments and to reduce the contamination of those aqueous environments with antibiotics and residues, which can spread and facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals?

Lord Douglas-Miller: Antimicrobial resistance has been raised a number of times in the House. I have had several meetings with the noble Lord and his colleagues, talking about the UK’s success story in this area. Antibiotic use has been reduced by more than 50% over the last five years. However, there is more progress to be made and the noble Lord raises a series of very valuable points, which I will write to him on.

Lord Deben: Does my noble friend agree that if we do not get some of these things out pretty quickly and the European Union goes on improving its situation, many people will ask whether there was any point in taking back control in the first place?

Lord Douglas-Miller: That is certainly an interesting perspective but not one that I would agree with, I am afraid. Now that we have left the UK, we will follow the best—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Douglas-Miller: I think that your Lordships spotted my mistake. We will follow the best scientific advice and adopt the most appropriate approaches for the UK.

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that firefighters have a cancer risk that is conservatively estimated to be two to three times higher than that of the general population and that one key factor in that higher risk is the presence of “forever chemicals” in firefighter foams and PPE? Can the Minister confirm that consulting with the FBU on issues such as regular health checks, and a strategy to mitigate and, ideally, prevent that risk, is in that draft updated strategy that he has next to him? Does he agree that dithering and delays in this strategy cost lives?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Baroness is quite right. Forever chemicals are a serious concern. They are linked to a number of different firefighting products—the foam and chemicals that come out of the extinguishers present a particularly serious issue, and not only to those who are using them, for that product gets inextricably linked to the environment around it. A number of issues which will come through in the strategy are in place to address that.

Earl Russell: My Lords, how long do the Government plan to keep granting emergency exemptions from the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides? When are they planning to ban these dangerous substances permanently?

Lord Douglas-Miller: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, restrictions preventing the general use of three neonics in agriculture have been in place for several years. The Government continue to support these restrictions and have no intention of reversing them. A neonic seed treatment, Cruiser SB, is allowed to be used on sugar beet in England only if yellows virus is predicted to pose a threat to that year’s crop. This decision is not taken lightly and is based on a robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, in the last four years, the EU has added 31 substances to its list of substances of very high concern and has banned eight substances on that list outright. The UK is reported to be considering adding four to its equivalent list of substances of very high concern, by 2025 at the earliest. Analysts have suggested that this is because of either the Government’s general reluctance to regulate or the lack of Civil Service capacity. Will the Minister change either of those two factors?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I believe there might be choices other than the two that the noble Baroness highlights. One is that not all those substances are  necessarily being, or will be, used in the UK; therefore, banning them seems in no way appropriate. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point and will look into it further.

Baroness Redfern: My Lords, since leaving the EU, we have the freedom to phase out the most harmful and persistent pollutants. Are we on target to eliminate the use of polychlorinated biphenyls next year?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I thank my noble friend for that question. It might be best if I write to her with the details.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I always get the impression that chemicals regulation is at the bottom of Defra’s in-tray. Its performance since Brexit has been atrocious. I also get the impression that the Government’s strategy now is to lighten the burden on industry by reducing the amount of information that is put on UK REACH, but that has a lot of other effects. Can we not get to a point where we save real money for the UK chemical industry, which exports into the EU, by finding a pragmatic way—I mean pragmatic—to align with EU REACH, so that the industry can really perform, export and save a huge amount of money; in fact, billions of pounds?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Lord raises a bigger point, and this is exactly what the chemicals strategy aims to achieve. I hope that when it is published, and it will be shortly, the noble Lord will be satisfied.

Universities: Sensitive Research
 - Question

Lord Young of Cookham: To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect sensitive research at universities from national security threats.

Viscount Camrose: The Government are implementing a range of legislative and non-legislative measures, including the Research Collaboration Advice Team, which provides advice to academia on national security risks in international collaboration. The integrated review refresh committed to review the effectiveness of existing protections. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading this review, and the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week that the Government will consult on the response in the summer.

Lord Young of Cookham: I am grateful to my noble friend, but are our universities not compromising their independence by becoming overreliant on China? Some 25% of the students, or 10,000, at UCL are Chinese, which risks the infiltration of academic research and, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, coercion, exploitation and vulnerability. While I welcome  the recent Statement, what steps will the Government take to replace lost Chinese funding for our universities, so that the UK remains at the forefront of technological research?

Viscount Camrose: I thank my noble friend for the question. The first thing to say is that the independence of universities is absolutely critical to the quality of their research. While the integrated review refresh has of course indicated a great many concerns about working closely with China, and necessitated a reduction of academic collaboration with China, I hope our recent reassociation to the Horizon programme, and a number of other third countries also considering or being very close to associating with Horizon, will go some way towards providing a new pool of collaboration partners in academic research.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, I am sure that all of us agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that we need to protect scientific development from malign actors. But is there not a real problem here—that new technology and advances in scientific knowledge not only require international collaboration, on a scale hitherto unknown, but that most of it, ever since the bow and arrow, is dual-purpose? In other words, it can be used for benevolent or malign reasons. How do the departments charged with this responsibility distinguish between these two, so that in protecting us from the misuse of scientific advances, they are not smothering scientific research as a whole?

Viscount Camrose: The noble Lord is absolutely right in his analysis of the problem, which I agree with wholeheartedly. The most powerful tool we have at our disposal in this is RCAT—the Research Collaboration Advice Team—which provides hundreds of individual items of advice in these areas, where it can actually be quite subtle whether something is dual or single-use or has a military or defence application. It is not something that can be very easily defined up front, and does require a certain wisdom and delicacy of advice to provide that.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, last week the Statement did not seem to say very much about which actors might be under consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has already mentioned China, but do His Majesty’s Government also think that Iran and other countries might be a problem—not by giving funding, but by researchers and students coming? If that is the case, can His Majesty’s Government really expect universities to vet individuals? Is that not the role for government? I declare my interest as a professor at Cambridge.

Viscount Camrose: The noble Baroness raises a very important point; it is not about naming one or more countries and targeting them. The non-legislative and legislative elements of the entire approach to this are about being actor agnostic, and simply looking at the cases as they arise.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, further to the points made by my noble friend, the Government said they are taking a range of measures, but if you take an  area like biosecurity, which I am sure the Minister will agree is a very significant potential future threat, with people perhaps developing pathogens, aided possibly by using AI technology to do them more easily and quickly, is there not a case for mandatory surveillance over, for example, access to materials, which would indicate where somebody might be trying to do something that has that dual purpose—in other words, something bad rather than something good? Does the Minister agree that a voluntary scheme, such as I understand exists at the moment, may not be enough?

Viscount Camrose: Indeed, and we must recognise that there are limits to a voluntary scheme, particularly where actors are genuinely malign. I reassure the noble Viscount that any research contracted for purposes of defence, or indeed for purposes that might be used for defence, would be subject to vetting in the usual way. Depending on the nature of the research, the greater the vetting.

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the University of Strathclyde. This challenge to our universities is both fast-moving and intensifying in complexity. Now, the Russell group comprises some universities across the United Kingdom, but not all. Universities UK represents many universities across the United Kingdom, but not all. Is there, or are there plans for, a United Kingdom Government security portal, accessible to all universities across the United Kingdom, for immediate advice and information, if they have concerns?

Viscount Camrose: I thank my noble friend for that. Yes, the university sector absolutely does go far beyond just the Russell group. We must take account of all its needs. The review of protections for higher education and academia is now entering its second phase. There will be consultation on that over the summer. An area it will look at is precisely the mechanics that my noble friend puts forward as to how this kind of transparency can best be delivered with the minimum possible administrative overhead.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that, as long ago as September 2023, his noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone, in conjunction with King’s College, produced a report warning about the dangers which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, mentioned to the House? It called for diversification of the population base of our universities, which had become too reliant on money flowing in from China. Will he also comment on the case that was raised in the media last month of Professor Michelle Shipworth, who was banned from teaching what was called a “provocative” course at a prestigious university, UCL, simply because it might compromise commercial interests—that is, the flow of money from China?

Viscount Camrose: I certainly recognise the concern that overseas undergraduates tend to come very largely from a small number of countries, and the value of diversifying from that. I am afraid I am not  familiar with the case the noble Lord mentions. I am very happy to write to him about it. It sounds extremely concerning.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, upholding national security is the first duty of any Government. To that end, we welcome the Government’s recent briefing for vice-chancellors and the intention to consult on how better to protect UK research from academic espionage. Given the importance of and the likely increase in these threats, does the Minister think it would be reasonable for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to offer similar briefings to their shadow counterparts?

Viscount Camrose: I would be very happy to raise that with them and ask them to do so. I take the noble Baroness’s point. There is nothing more important for us to do than look after our security, and research security is a very serious component of that.

Baroness Manningham-Buller: Would the Minister recognise that it is extremely important that his department works closely with the Home Office on this? I noticed last week the warning, from my successor but three at MI5, to vice-chancellors of the threat from Chinese espionage in universities, much of which will be by students under coercion. If I may answer the noble Baroness’s question about who you can go to, there is an organisation but such is my senility that I cannot remember its name. I will look it up. It is connected very closely to MI5, but it is the public-facing organisation to which you go with concerns. It starts “National Protective Security”, I think, but a quick look on my telephone has not revealed the answer, so I will talk to her later. The Minister probably knows the answer, but I am afraid I do not.

Viscount Camrose: I am consulting the lengthy list of acronyms that I wrote down in preparing for this, but I am not sure I have the right one. I take the noble Baroness’s point very seriously. We work extremely closely on this with the Home Office. A number of the legislative provisions keeping our research secure belong to the Home Office and we continue to work closely with it. As to the exact agency she mentioned, I will find out from my officials and write to her.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Victims and Prisoners Bill
 - Report (3rd Day)

Welsh legislative consent sought.

Amendment 94

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: Moved by Baroness Morgan of Cotes
94: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—“Review of requests for counselling information relating to victims(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report about the operation in the review period of Chapter 3A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (requests for information relating to victims) (inserted by section 24 of this Act) in relation to counselling information requests.(2) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by arranging for another person to prepare a report about those matters.(3) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the review period, the Secretary of State must—(a) arrange for the report prepared under subsection (1) (or under arrangements under subsection (2)) to be published, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(4) In this section—“counselling information request” has the meaning given by section 44A(3B) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022;“review period” means the period of three years beginning with the day on which section 24 comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires a report about the operation of Chapter 3A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, inserted by section 24 of this Act, in relation to counselling information requests to be prepared, published and laid before Parliament.
Amendment 94 agreed.

Amendment 95

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: Moved by Baroness Morgan of Cotes
95: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—“Victims’ rights in relation to data(1) The UK GDPR is amended as follows.(2) In Article 21 (right to object), after paragraph 1, insert—“1A. The data subject shall have the right to object on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her, or a third party where that party is a child for whom they have parental responsibility, which is based on points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions, if exceptional circumstances apply.1B. The exceptional circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1A are—(a) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be suspected to constitute a criminal offence, or(b) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be considered as being intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the data subject or another living individual.1C. The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure prescribe other exceptional circumstances where the right to object mentioned in paragraph 1A applies.”  (3) In Article 17 (right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”)), after paragraph 1(c), insert—“(ca) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1A).””Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would allow victims of third party harassment to request the deletion of any personal data which was gathered or held as part of activity which could be considered criminal conduct. The aim of this amendment is to prevent third party reporting from causing ongoing distress to victims.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: My Lords, I am sorry that due to a family matter I could not be in the House for the Committee stage of this Bill to move the similar amendment tabled earlier. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for speaking to that amendment. This amendment was tabled in the House of Commons by Stella Creasy MP based on her experience as a victim of harassment, but it is not unique to her situation. I am grateful, and I know she is too, for the continuing support for this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Finn, and for the engagement we have had with the Opposition Front Bench. I am also very grateful to Ministers and officials who have engaged with us in recent weeks on the issues raised by this amendment.
To recap briefly, just to put the amendment in context, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record, but malicious reporting to other organisations, whether social services or an employer, as part of a campaign of stalking and harassment, does not carry the same safeguard. As a result, data is retained on individuals who have been targeted maliciously, whether that be workplace harassment, stalking or some other malicious behaviour. Such harassment, stalking or malicious behaviour might well include allegations about the parenting capacity of the victim, but it often takes other forms.
Many victims find that even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain in existence. This is because current data protection rules mean that records such as this cannot always be deleted. The retention of this data has long-lasting consequences for all individuals involved. In fact, having to repeatedly disclose the existence of the complaint, even if it has been proven to be part of a campaign of stalking or harassment, is in many ways a repetition of that harassment.
I think that where we are now, after that engagement with Ministers and officials, is that there is now a recognition by the Government that reporting by a third party can be used to perpetuate harassment or as part of a stalking campaign, and also that victims should be better supported to have those reports deleted. I understand that the Government’s concern has been to strike a balance between the right to erasure of data held as a result of malicious conduct or intent and the need of organisations to retain data that could become relevant in some future safeguarding context, particularly involving children.
That is why the proposed new clause before the House seeks to enable the deletion of data where a clear threshold is met to show that the report was the  result of malice and its retention would continue the harassment. I think all those involved in the discussions, including the Government, agree that the threshold would certainly be reached in the case of a criminal conviction. Many of us also believe that the threshold is reached in the case of a civil order, where such an order is applied for by the police or made by the court, and where a breach of that order is in itself a criminal offence. It is important that we do not put victims off having such orders applied for in order to stop the harassment or stalking behaviour.
It is also important that the burden of getting the data deleted is not placed back on the victim of the stalking and harassment. Careful amendments to statutory guidance and the victims’ code would also be very welcome to ensure that in the right circumstances there is a presumption for the removal of data and the relevant authorities are given clear guidance on how to treat victim applications where malicious reporting is involved.
Having said all that, I shall now listen carefully to the rest of this debate, particularly to what to my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say in reply to these points. This is an important issue that we can do something about in the Bill to support victims of this malicious behaviour, and I hope that the House, Ministers and the Government will take the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment, to which several of us spoke at Second Reading and in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and Stella Creasy MP for the dogged way in which they have pursued this issue. I give the Government and the Bill team credit for being worn down to the extent that a degree of accord, and indeed a recognition of this particular form of invasive behaviour, have been reached.
There is a lot in the press at the moment about a phenomenon known as sextortion. I would almost call what we are talking about in the amendment a form of domestic terrorism. It is somebody making a completely unfounded allegation about, in this case, somebody else’s fitness to be a parent of small children in order to, in a sense, force a situation in which an investigation has to take place. Even though the investigation finds that there is absolutely no basis in the allegation, the allegation remains on that individual’s record, and that individual is compelled to reveal that allegation in a variety of situations in which they are required to provide due diligence. In each case they have to explain that it was malicious and the result of harassment. That is what we are trying to avoid.
I too am looking forward to what the Minister will say in response. I hope that at Third Reading there will be an amendment that we can all agree with. Your Lordships will be aware that, as Stella Creasy was surprised to find out, we in your Lordships’ House are able to table an amendment at Third Reading. We very much hope that will not be necessary, because we are sure the government amendment will meet what is required. To that extent, the sooner we are able to see the wording of the government amendment and have  a further dialogue about it if necessary, so that we are all on the same page at Third Reading, the better. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for being so accommodating.

Baroness Finn: My Lords, I spoke in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan and I support her amendment today. I commend the tenacity of Stella Creasy, my noble friend and other noble Lords in engaging with various government departments, and I thank my noble friends the Ministers for engaging with her and Stella over some of the more complex issues involved.
I appreciate that this is not completely straightforward, but the fact that it is difficult to reach a conclusion should not prevent us tabling the amendment and getting it right. While it is disappointing that we do not yet have a government amendment to scrutinise, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for agreeing to table an amendment that we hope will cover all the areas of concern at Third Reading.
It is hard to overemphasise the toll that malicious complaints take on individuals, their mental health and their family life. I take a real case of someone who suddenly, out of the blue, received a call from the local police sharing details of a complaint made about the treatment of her children. Despite the false claims being robustly rebutted—her children had attended school, were taken to the dentist and were registered with their local GP, despite allegations to the contrary—this mark remains on her record and that of her children. She describes it as feeling like “the sword of Damocles hanging over my head”. It is a constant worry. It is simply not right that many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments but will quickly emphasise three points. First, limiting this amendment to victims of crime where the data is linked to that crime would ensure that it does not become open to abuse, but stalking and harassment involve many actions by perpetrators, so it is important that the drafting of these amendments should not be too narrow. Secondly, while there needs to be a clear threshold to show that the retention of data will continue the harassment, the removal of data should not be confined to criminal convictions. My noble friend Lady Morgan has made the case for the various thresholds very clearly.
Finally, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. If chief constables have clear guidance that covers the removal of malicious allegations, it should surely be possible to have similar guidance for malicious reporting to other organisations. I am very grateful that my noble friend the Minister has agreed to explore this further.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, it was an honour to sign this amendment and to join in some of the meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and colleagues and Stella Creasy. Other colleagues have  already explained the progress that has been made. We are hoping to hear from the Minister shortly, but I just want to say that, should the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, decide to call a vote, we on these Benches will support her. If she does not, we look forward to seeing an amendment at Third Reading.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I am only going to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I think she has shown huge patience and persistence. I am not surprised, because my honourable friend Stella Creasy has those qualities too. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, should the Minister not satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we on these Benches are ready to support her in a Division.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I do not think that any message could have been conveyed more loudly and more convincingly than the one I have just received. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for this amendment and thank the other speakers on this topic.
As your Lordships have heard, the amendment seeks to revise current data protection legislation so that victims of malicious complaints involving third parties can prevent the processing—and subsequently request the deletion—of personal data from that complaint. The issue has been raised previously in the other place and discussed in your Lordships’ House in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Morgan has just said, the Government indeed recognise that complaints of this kind can be used to perpetuate harassment and that victims should be better supported.
In addition, as my noble friend also pointed out, we have to strike a balance between the processes for erasure and removal of all traces of such complaints and harassment on the one hand and the need to have regard to safeguarding concerns on the other. The issue is how we strike the balance. The Government’s present view is that the amendment as drafted is not one that we can accept because it is too wide and poses some operational and safeguarding issues. However, we have heard the concerns and, although we cannot accept the amendment today, I commit the Government to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to address these concerns.
To explain a little, if I may, we have to triangulate several different aspects: the nature of the harassment concerned, the provisions and procedures of the GDPR, the child safeguarding issues that are the concern of the Department for Education, the different procedures for various criminal and civil orders, the relevant police procedures and a number of other considerations, so it is not entirely straightforward. However, although it is not ideal to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, this is a complex area and we should take the time to find an appropriate solution.
I can also commit to working further with my noble friend and other Peers once we have the necessary wording ahead of Third Reading, to ensure that there is time for scrutiny and discussion on this. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Barran,  who I think has engaged closely with my noble friend Lady Morgan and others on this topic. On that basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment at this point.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy very much for that wording. I also thank all those who have spoken in this short but perfectly formed, deeply efficient and extremely tenacious debate for their support, which has been much appreciated. Perhaps I might say that this has also been an instructive lesson to Members from the House of Commons as to how we get things done here in this Chamber.
We need to see the wording and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying that. We will of course engage with his officials. I am also deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran for her engagement already. I am very grateful that the Government now see the need to update the law to take into account this very real situation. Any amendment needs to be clear that the process of applying for deletion must be accessible to victims of malicious complaint. The threshold, as we have heard, is not just criminal convictions but, potentially, other orders so that we do not create a perverse incentive for victims not to have certain orders sought on their behalf. I also appreciate that any amendment obviously needs to safeguard protection and rights for children.
On this basis, we will see whether the government amendment goes far enough when we see it before Third Reading—I hope we see it well in advance of that—and, if not, I reserve the right to table our own to continue the debate. I am grateful for the support. I will even take it to a vote at Third Reading if we feel that the Government’s amendment is not fit for purpose. But, for the purposes of today, I will withdraw Amendment 95.
Amendment 95 withdrawn.

Amendment 96

Baroness Meacher: Moved by Baroness Meacher
96: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—“Victims of specified offences: data-sharing for immigration purposes(1) The personal data of a victim of a crime mentioned in subsection (3), which is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to the crime, must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.(2) The personal data of a witness to crime mentioned in subsection (3), which is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of the crime, must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.(3) The crimes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—(a) domestic abuse as defined by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;(b) an offence under any of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A (1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;(c) an offence under any of sections 1, 2 or 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;(d) an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;  (e) such other offences as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2).(5) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about the effect of subsections (1) and (2) to—(a) persons who are victims of or witnesses to the crimes in subsection (3),(b) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of crime in the United Kingdom,(c) persons providing support to, or conducting investigations or prosecutions with the support of, witnesses of crime in the United Kingdom,(d) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality, and(e) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.(7) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses,(c) the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the guidance issued under this section if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.(9) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance issued under this section relates must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.(10) For the purposes of this section—“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes by which the individual, by a statement, signifies agreement to the processing of the personal data.“immigration” means the exercise of any functions of the Secretary of State and of immigration officers under the Immigration Acts within the meaning of section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007.“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services and any function of a court or prosecuting authority.“victim”, in relation to a crime, means the particular person who appears to have been affected by the crime, and their dependent, where that dependent is also affected by the crime.”Member’s explanatory statementThis probing amendment seeks to ensure that the personal data of a victim of a crime is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

Baroness Meacher: I intend to press this amendment to a vote, so I need to explain it. We have already debated it but, very briefly, the amendment seeks to protect migrants who help the police by preventing their personal details being used by the immigration authorities. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 214, Noes 208.

Amendment 96 agreed.

  
Clause 27: Consequential provision

Amendments 97 to 99

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
97: Clause 27, page 28, line 36, leave out paragraph (a)Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27 and Clause 18, page 17, line 17.
98: Clause 27, page 29, line 1, leave out “each of subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a)” and insert “subsection (2)(a)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
99: Clause 27, page 29, line 3, at end insert—“(ii) in subsection (3)(a), for “required to do anything under the code issued under section 32” substitute “who is subject to the duty in section 5(A1) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (duty to provide services in accordance with victims’ code)”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Amendments 97 to 99 agreed.

Amendment 100

Baroness Brinton: Moved by Baroness Brinton
100: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—“Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing schemeAfter section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, insert—“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a government department to inform victims and their families of their rights set out in section 36 (reviews of sentencing).(2) The information provided under subsection (1) must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.””Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment will ensure that victims are aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme which presently has a strict 28-day timeframe in which to apply, there being no power to extend the time.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to lay Amendments 100 and 101 for your Lordships’ consideration. As we had a considerable debate on them in Committee, I propose to outline only the briefest reasons why I have re-laid these amendments originally laid by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.
The whole object of the Bill is to give victims some rights that would at least go some way towards matching the rights for offenders and other participants in the criminal justice system. At present, the permissions for a victim to argue and challenge a sentence for being unduly lenient are completely different from those of everybody else involved in the system. For example, offenders can exceed a 28-day timeframe by exceptionality—all they and their counsel have to do is demonstrate that there really are exceptional  circumstances. But, for victims, there is no such exception at all, even if they were not informed by the police or the courts about the sentence itself but were left completely in the dark.
We know from the many stories that were retold in Committee that there is a real sense of injustice. One victim had received notification of the sentence on the 28th day by which she had to apply for a challenge. It was delivered to the Attorney-General’s office, and nobody was there, even though it was within the timeframe. Because it was not opened, she was not permitted to challenge the sentence.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussion we have had, and I look forward to hearing him speak from the Dispatch Box. What we seek through these two amendments is to make sure that victims have the right, as everybody else in the criminal justice system does, to say, “Please will the Attorney-General reconsider this sentence for this crime, because we believe that it is unduly lenient?” I beg to move.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: I am happy to add my name to these two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. There is no need to speak at length about them; it is essentially about trying to ensure that victims have equality of rights, in this case with prospective prisoners. At the moment, frankly, they are disadvantaged and are put through a series of hoops—if, indeed, they can find out what in theory they are entitled to. I shall say no more than that I entirely support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, we had a very full debate on this issue in Committee. From these Benches, we are deeply committed to these two amendments. This is a victims’ Bill, and it seems to me that we really need to be doing things to support victims, which is what these two relatively modest amendments do. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to extend the current time limit for applications under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which currently must be made within 28 days of sentencing and require a nominated government department to inform victims and families of the scheme, including the relevant time limits.
Having a fixed time limit reflects the importance of finality in sentencing for both victim and offender. While we will keep this limit under consideration, there are no current plans to remove the certainty of an absolute time limit for victims and offenders alike. However, the Government recognise that there is uncertainty over how far in advance of the time limit expiring a victim must ask for a sentence to be reviewed, given the fact that the Attorney-General must refer the case to the Court of Appeal within that fixed time limit. We also recognise that the number of requests made to the law officers and therefore the number of sentences they consider has increased in recent years, due in part to increased awareness of the scheme.
The Government are therefore tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which will amend the time limit in the unduly lenient sentencing scheme so that, where a request is made to the Attorney-General in the last 14 days of the 28-day limit, the Attorney-General will have 14 days from receipt to consider the request and, if appropriate, make an application to the Court of Appeal for a sentence to be reviewed. This will benefit victims as it will ensure that the Attorney-General will be able to consider requests that are made up until the end of the 28-day period.
As for informing victims about the scheme and the time limits, as I said in Committee, the victims’ code is already clear that victims should be informed about the scheme by the police’s witness care units at the same time as they are told about the sentence. This is expected to be done within six days of sentencing. However, I can go further and commit that when revising the victims’ code, the Government will look at the information about the scheme that is provided to make sure that it is as clear as possible. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that action is being taken to address the issues she raised very eloquently in Committee and again today. Consequently, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I am grateful to all speakers, especially for their brevity. I particularly thank the Minister for outlining details of how the Government are considering changing this, but we are seeking parity of rights between offenders and victims here. Offenders can still appeal outside 28 days in exceptional circumstances, those exceptional circumstances being judged by the Attorney-General. That is not on offer at the moment. There are not going to be floods of victims applying via these amendments if they have concerns about the finality of sentencing, but for a few victims of very serious crimes, this would provide a small amount of discretion. We heard examples that show how rigid the current system is. Under these amendments, the Attorney-General could easily decide, as they do at the moment for offenders, if there are genuine exceptional circumstances. It is true that the 14-day proposals assist the Attorney-General’s office and the CPS; however, the fundamental injustice remains. Victims, and only victims, still have only 28 days to apply. On these grounds, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Division on Amendment 100 called. Tellers for the Contents were not appointed, so the Division could not proceed.
Amendment 100 disagreed.

Amendment 101

Baroness Brinton: Moved by Baroness Brinton
101: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—“Unduly lenient sentences: time limitIn paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, at end insert “, subject to paragraph 1A. (1A) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include but  not be limited to a failure of the relevant body to inform the victim and families of their rights under section 36 (reviews of sentencing).””Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would allow for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and prompt criminal justice agencies to meet their obligation to inform the victim and families of their rights and the tight time limit.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, with apologies to the House, it was Amendment 101 that I meant to divide on. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 222, Noes 222.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Amendment 101 disagreed.

Amendment 101A

Lord Garnier: Moved by Lord Garnier
101A: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.

Lord Garnier: My Lords, I wonder whether I can achieve such a satisfactory result at the end of my little outing.
For my noble friends on the Front Bench, listening to me speaking about this subject, which includes the proposed new clause in my Amendment 101A, it must seem as though they are listening to a cracked record—but for me it is like banging my head against a brick wall. For both of us, it will be nice when it stops.
In brief, my proposed new clause intends to require
“a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation”.
I will hardly speak at all about the reasons behind the amendment and the good sense for it, because I already did so in Committee and trailed it, more or less verbatim, prior to that at Second Reading in December. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I will not say it a third time. However, what I will say a third time is a matter of formality relevant to the amendment: I declare my interest as a member of the Bar who practises in the field of economic crime.
I thank my noble friend Lord Roborough on the Front Bench, who very kindly arranged for me and Sam Tate—the partner of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, RPC, the London law firm, who has studied this question with me and others—to meet him last week, along with a number of his officials. We had a very useful and friendly discussion, as one would expect. The conclusion was that there would need to be—guess what?—further discussions before the Government would be prepared to do very much.
I fully understand, and I fully understood then, the difficulties in which the Minister found himself in having the discretion to move this thing forward, but I think we both understand that this needs to be dealt with. It is a matter of morality and good law, and it has nothing whatever to do with party politics. This is not an area of political discord but just a matter of common sense and getting it done.
Essentially, I am trying to make it possible for the victims of fraud and other economic offences that impact on people overseas to be compensated by our English courts. The headline points are these. According to research done by Sam Tate and others at RPC, approximately £1.5 billion has been paid by corporates in fines and disgorgements of profits in the United Kingdom in relation to international corruption cases over the last 10 years, but only 1.4% of that money—about £20 million —has been paid to overseas state victims in compensation.
As I said, I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading and in Committee about the complications that may follow with trying to arrange for compensation to overseas victims to be implemented. It is not an utterly easy thing to do but, equally, it is not utterly difficult. It just requires effort, political will and drive. I hope that the meeting I had with my noble friend the Minister last week and the brevity of my remarks today will encourage the Government to just use a bit of oomph to get this thing going.
If the public listened to what I am saying now— I quite appreciate that they do not—they would realise that it is mad that we prosecute people here for things they did overseas but we do not compensate the victims who are overseas. There are hospitals and schools to be built, and other infrastructure and good causes to benefit from the compensation that ought to be paid.
I will leave it there, because I know that my noble friend the Minister would like to say some very encouraging things about what the Government are going to do, very shortly and certainly before the election, to ensure that this programme is moved forward. I have a draft letter, which I will send to the chairman of the Sentencing Council and which my noble friend has seen; he has heard all my arguments many times before. I just hope that, this third time, I will be able to persuade him to move a little more than an inch towards that milepost that I can see not very far away. I beg to move.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising this issue in Amendment 101A and for taking the time to meet me the other day to discuss this important issue further. As he is well aware, cases linked to foreign bribery are inherently complex, and the suggestion and detail that he has provided are being given careful consideration by my officials. Given the range of departmental interests engaged, His Majesty’s Government need to give it the consideration it is owed and welcome further conversations once they have digested my noble and learned friend’s points further. I will briefly lay out the Government’s position, which I did not cover fully in Committee.
His Majesty’s Government are fully committed to identifying potential victims and utilising suitable means to return money and/or compensate victims in line with international provisions, per the Government’s framework for transparent asset returns. As a signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is obligated to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, the UK also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases when it is not otherwise mandated to do so. Transparency and accountability are critical principles which the UK applies to its work under the UN Convention against Corruption and in providing redress for victims of corruption crimes under the convention. It is also right that any avenue of redress should embody those principles in the UK for victims of crimes.
His Majesty’s Government are also actively engaged with our international partners and regularly seek out opportunities to learn and share best practice with them on how to address this inherently complex issue. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier will be aware, in cases where there are overseas victims, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case and that the available legal mechanisms are used whenever appropriate to secure it. This provides the most appropriate and suitable mechanism for compensation to be considered, and it works.
Further to this, development of a new anti-corruption strategy is well under way, with publication expected shortly. The new strategy will build on progress made in the 2017 strategy and set out how the Government will go further to counter corruption. The strategy will consider steps to prevent institutions being corrupted, bring corrupt actors to justice, address the harms to victims and combat corruption internationally. His Majesty’s Government also regularly engage with and welcome the views of civil society on issues of this nature and will continue to do so.
As I have previously set out, extensive work is being undertaken to strengthen the rights of victims through legislative vehicles which are still undergoing implementation. I therefore do not believe that it is appropriate for a legislatively required review to be introduced at this time. However, my noble and learned friend has raised some excellent and well-considered points which I know my officials would welcome further discussion on. I hope that this provides him with some reassurance. I therefore respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Garnier: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his response. I take on board precisely what he has said. This is complicated but it is not as complicated as he perhaps has been led to believe. It is easy to say that it is all too difficult, put it into the “too difficult” box and leave it. I simply urge my noble friend the Minister to move it just a bit into the “let’s have a look at it quite seriously” box. There is an awful lot of good that we can do, both for the victims of such overseas criminal activity and for our reputation as an honest place in which to do business and from which to do business.
I have troubled the House about this subject quite enough during this Bill, so will draw my remarks to an end by asking the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 101A withdrawn.

  
Clause 28: Meaning of “major incident” etc

Amendment 102

Lord Wills: Moved by Lord Wills
102: Clause 28, page 29, line 10, at end insert “or has occurred before that date, provided that serious harm to the victims is ongoing after this section comes into force,”

Lord Wills: My Lords, I shall combine my remarks on Amendment 102 with those on Amendments 103, 105 and 106.
Amendments 102, 103 and 105 seek to remove an unfair and irrational restriction on the role of the independent public advocate. I spoke in Committee at some length about how my original conception of this position in my Private Member’s Bill was driven by the pressing need for greater support and agency for those have been failed by the state and by public authorities in major incidents. Those who can avail themselves of the services of the advocate must include those for whom harm continues after a major incident, even though the major incident occurred before the passage of the Act.
Can there really be any serious justification for excluding, for example, the victims of contaminated blood transfusions and the postmasters whose lives were wrecked and continue to be wrecked by the Horizon scandal—people still struggling with the consequences of those failures by the state and by public authorities, even though the failures occurred before now?
I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister would address this question directly: what justification is there to restrict the role of the advocate to exclude those such as the victims of contaminated blood transfusions? These amendments would rectify this specific problem in the current draft of the Bill.
In asking the Minister to respond to that question, I should perhaps have preceded my remarks by thanking him for the great generosity of time that he has given me, with his officials—to whom I am also extremely grateful—in discussing all the elements of this part of the Bill. He has gone over and above the call of duty. That I am one of many speakers thanking him for that shows the extent of this House’s debt to him and his officials in the progress of the Bill.
Amendment 106 is a relatively minor amendment but, after two Private Member’s Bills, it occurred to me that we perhaps should be more careful about how we define those who might benefit from the services of the of an independent public advocate. What constitutes a “close family member” in the modern world? Fifty or 100 years ago, the answer would have been common sense, but it is not any more. Living arrangements and relationships are much more various than they ever used to be. “Close” and “family” are, in effects, often disputable terms, and the current draft of the Bill is perhaps purposefully vague. For example, who will decide whether a parent estranged from their partner and who is no longer responsible for the upbringing of a child victim counts as a close family member? What happens if the person in question disputes any exclusion from the services of the advocate? If we at all can, we should try to head off such arguments beforehand, because they would only compound the grief and trauma suffered by many in the aftermath of a major incident.
This amendment seeks to avoid that, although it is, in essence, probing. If the Government have a better formulation, I would be happy to consider it, but it seeks to do so by introducing the specific definitions that have been derived from the intestacy provisions.
Amendment 106A tries to ensure that the post is implemented with proper timeliness. In Committee, I pointed out that it has been nearly seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. The amendment seeks to remove any further possibility that the Government will unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. In his response in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out the need to observe due process in public appointments, so the amendment has been tweaked to take better account of that than my previous one.
In doing so, I had regard to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Among other things, the code says that appointments should be completed
“within three months of a competition closing”.
In 2019, the Commissioner for Public Appointments found that the Ministry of Justice, where ministerial responsibility for the independent public advocate will reside, completed only 18% of appointments within that three-month target. Only the Home Office and BEIS had worse figures. To show that these figures are achievable, that compares to 100% of appointments by His Majesty’s Treasury and 76.7% by NHSI. Of course, the Ministry of Justice’s performance might have been transformed in the last five years but, in any event, the six-month period stipulated in this amendment should be ample time for the department to appoint the first independent public advocate, if it fulfils its duties in the way that the Commissioner for Public Appointments expects. If the Minister disagrees, I would be grateful if he could explain in detail why. This amendment is simply a lever to ensure compliance with the code of governance.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 110ZA. I spoke to this in Committee; I have tabled it again because, as it stands, the Bill still appears to permit the Secretary of State to appoint the independent public advocate but deprive them of the means to exercise their functions. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but in any event this amendment will prevent any such travestying of the position.
Finally in this group, I come to Amendment 119AA; this amendment is intended to replace Amendment 108 in the Marshalled List. I spoke at some length in Committee, again, about the need to provide for some version of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to be accommodated in this Bill. This amendment attempts to do just that. I do not intend to rehearse again all of the arguments I made in Committee, but I remind the Minister of the advantages of such a provision, in terms of saving the taxpayer potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the lifetime of a Parliament, and helping victims and the bereaved towards a more timely closure of their grief and trauma. The prolonged processes embedded, for example, in public inquiries only increase their suffering. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his response whether the Government truly understand the crucial imperative of timeliness in fact-finding after a major incident, and how important that is for victims and the bereaved. How can it be acceptable to make them wait year after year, sometimes decade after decade, to find out what happened to their loved ones, and to understand why they have suffered such loss? Such delays only compound grief and trauma. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: My Lords, I return to speak very briefly to Amendment 109B, to deal with the position of Wales. In Committee, I introduced an amendment to require the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, when appointing an independent advocate, to secure the consent of the Welsh Ministers. This is an area where it is common ground that there is devolution. I am grateful to say that the Government have agreed that there should be consultation, but they refuse to agree consent.
I put this down initially because one of the ways to make a union strong is to have a proper dialogue. Now, there are some areas where consultation has to be required by statute. Normally, one would expect  that in areas where there is an overlap in competence, there would be consultation, but it is right we put a statutory duty in to that effect. However, it seems to me wholly extraordinary—and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice— that they refuse to agree to the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
Now, noble Lords will all know that, when looking for a lawyer, there is normally quite a good choice. In my experience, having been involved on a number of occasions, you can normally have a discussion about A or B, and you agree on C. It seems to me totally extraordinary, if we are to live in a union that works, that the Government in Westminster have to say, “No, those people in Cardiff just have to be consulted; we don’t have to get their consent”. Is this any way to run a union? The answer is obviously not, and I am sure that this does not come from the Ministry of Justice—in this Bill, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have been most sensible in what they have put forward. But I deplore that bit of the Government that simply cannot understand that going through the courtesy of discussing things and obtaining consent is the better way to run a union.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who lives in Wales. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for the way he introduced this amendment, which, as I understand it, actually reflects the proper constitutional provision. This is, by common ground, a devolved area. The Senedd has competence to legislate for the creation and appointment of an independent advocate for victims of major incidents in Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments agree that is the case, so the Senedd could make provision for Wales. I note the Welsh Government also believe that their Ministers would be able to appoint a non-statutory advocate following an incident in Wales under general executive powers.
As it stands, therefore, we are legislating for a situation in which rival advocates could possibly be appointed at the same time. This may not seem a likely eventuality, but it would be easily prevented by this amendment. The only element of this part of the Bill in which the Senedd could not make provision with regard to Wales is that an advocate for victims appointed under the Bill would automatically secure interested person status in a relevant inquest under Clause 34, but an advocate for victims appointed by Welsh Ministers could still be given interested person status by a senior coroner if they consider them to have sufficient interest.
Clearly, it seems sensible for this legislation to cover both England and Wales, and so for the Welsh Government to be part of the scheme, but it is similarly sensible that the legislation reflects devolution, and enables Welsh Ministers to ensure that the advocate has knowledge in Wales and the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh. I remind the House that there is equal status between the two languages—in Wales, both English and Welsh are spoken—and the systems in Wales sometimes operate quite differently from systems in England.
The Secretary of State acting unilaterally in an area of devolved competence would not seem appropriate, and we need to avoid friction to strengthen the union. This is an opinion only and I am not speaking on behalf of Welsh Government at all, but the Counsel General expressed in the Senedd on 13 December that
“there needs to be specific account in terms of the role of Welsh Government and what would happen within Welsh situations were there to be a tragic event”.
I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted and will require the consent of Welsh Ministers to be agreed, not simply a consultation. The problem with the consultation is that there is a real risk it could be tokenistic.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, Clause 28 does not apply to Scotland, which can have its own legislation to deal with this matter, but I am very much in favour of the amendment. I have gone over the ground of seeking consent many times in different situations, but in this one, where we are dealing with the choice of advocates, the choice matters very much indeed. I would have thought that there is great sense in the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that this is an area where the consent of Welsh Ministers is not only appropriate but required.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, I have not taken part in earlier discussions on this Bill for reasons outside my control, but it would be strange for me not to get on my feet to reinforce the points that have been so well made by noble Lords. This is an important matter as far as Wales is concerned. There needs to be clarity and co-operation, and that has to be on a proper basis. I suggest that these amendments would help facilitate that.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, while we support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in view of the explanations he gave for them in Committee and today I shall not add to what he said on them, except for Amendment 119AA, to which I will turn. I should also add that we thoroughly support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We should all be mindful of his question, “Is this any way to run a union?” No, it is not, because there is a certain tactlessness, which is offensive and should be reversed, about the way the London Government sometimes regard devolution.
I will say a word or two about Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, although he has not yet spoken to it. I intervened on the principle of that amendment in Committee because it seemed to me then, as it does now, that the number of people killed or seriously injured in an incident is not and should not be the determining factor in whether it is a major incident. In Committee there was discussion about whether the Horizon scandal could be classified as a major incident because of the number of deaths and the serious harm that was caused, even though that harm may be psychological or emotional, and we questioned that. We also considered the Fishmongers’ Hall attack in which the significant number threshold was plainly not met, but the effect on the wider public of that event was traumatic, deep and widespread, I suggest, certainly enough to enable it to be properly classified as a major incident.
Since Committee, the noble Lord has narrowed his amendment significantly. It now seeks to permit the Secretary of State to classify as a major incident any incident where the circumstances indicate systemic failings of a public body and that such circumstances might recur, even where the significant number threshold is not met. I should have thought that the Government could have accepted and should accept that amendment. I will be very interested to hear whether the Minister considers that it is acceptable or whether he has some alternative; and, if not, why he considers that the number of dead and injured is a necessary condition for the appointment of public advocates.
Amendments 109 and 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concern considering the views of the victims before appointing an additional advocate and before terminating the appointment of advocates. Those amendments go some way, although a limited way, to ensuring the independence of advocates. That independence is an essential cornerstone of the scheme: independent advocates having the ability, the willingness and, indeed, the obligation to tell the truth as they see it, to argue for the truth as they see it and to criticise where they see the need. Otherwise, there is a danger that this scheme could prove a route to whitewashing the blunders of public bodies, which is something we all wish to avoid.
As to Amendment 119AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on which we expect he may wish to divide the House, the decision on whether to hold an inquiry into a major incident lies at the heart of the scheme. I suggest that he has made a powerful case that the power to establish an alternative fact-finding inquiry is important, for all the reasons he has given. It is also self-evident that any fact-finding inquiry can be effective only with access to all the relevant evidence, which is set out in his amendment. The very fact that the Government are resisting this amendment suggests a lack of self-confidence to ensure a thorough and independent scrutiny of major incidents, and that is why we shall support the noble Lord, Lord Wills, if he divides the House.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the scope and role of the independent advocate. I open by paying tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Wills has done on this role for many years now through a number of Private Members’ Bills. If he chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendment 119AA, we will support it.
I shall speak briefly to the amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 104 would enable the Secretary of State to designate incidents causing serious harm or death to a small number of individuals as major incidents where there was a significant public interest in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave the example of Fishmongers’ Hall, where there were few fatalities but nevertheless it was a serious incident that had a national impact. The noble Lord and I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to Amendment 104.
Amendment 107 would require the standing advocate to communicate the views of the victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State. Amendment 109 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views  of victims of a major incident on whether to appoint an additional advocate and who to appoint. Amendment 110 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider the views of the victims of a major incident before terminating the appointment of an advocate appointed in relation to that major incident.
Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to make guidance under Clause 38 publicly available. Amendment 112 would require the Secretary of State to consult the standing advocate before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance in relation to matters to which advocates appointed in respect of major incidents must have regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response to all those amendments, none of which I intend to press—they are essentially probing amendments.
I shall comment briefly on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the situation in Wales. I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on the matter. I am not a lawyer, as I have said many times in this House, but the word used in the amendment is “concurrence”, not “consent”. I do not know whether that is a substantial difference but the whole of that mini-debate referred to the word “consent”, not the word used in the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord made an interesting and substantial point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
In conclusion, if my noble friend chooses to press Amendment 119AA, we will support him.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, first I shall speak to the amendments tabled in my name, on behalf of the Government, which address the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government. Government Amendments 103A and 109A will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident that occurs in Wales and before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled Amendment 109B, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords have supported it.
The scheme here is being administered and funded by the UK Government. The Government’s position is therefore that the right level of involvement for Welsh Ministers is to be consulted by the Secretary of State before decisions are made, rather than requiring consent or concurrence, as Amendment 109B suggests. The Government believe it would not be proportionate for the UK Government to require the consent of Welsh Ministers, thereby in effect giving them a veto over those decisions. The Government must be able to act quickly following a disaster. I believe these amendments prioritise both speed and operability while respecting aspects of this policy that cover devolved areas.
For the avoidance of doubt, I add that, as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, we have perfectly good relations with the Counsel General for Wales, and we are in regular touch with Welsh Ministers on matters of mutual interest. For myself, I do not anticipate any difficulties arising from the sensible amendments proposed by the Government. Given that the Government have tabled these amendments, and having regard to  the points I have just outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall be moving the amendments in my name in this regard.
Government Amendment 110A is a technical amendment, clarifying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may omit from reports material that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would prejudice an investigation, inquest or inquiry. This is an important amendment to ensure that materials relating to national security or those that might prejudice a subsequent investigation or criminal trial, for example, are protected. In the Government’s view, the amendments preserve the necessary balance between protecting that integrity and giving reassurance that the independent public advocate’s reports will not be unduly affected. It is a sensible precaution to take.
Finally in this regard is an important point in relation to Amendment 119A in my name, which places an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the operation of the IPA scheme and to publish and lay before Parliament a report. The review period will be 18 months and will start when the first advocate is appointed in respect of a major incident. This was very much in response to discussions we have had with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on this and other topics. The Government believe that the review will be most effective once a major incident has been declared, but we recognise that this should be done as quickly as possible to ensure that it is working as intended.
That will require the Secretary of State to publish his review and lay it before Parliament. The scope of the review has been kept very broad and involves the operation of the whole part of the Bill. If I may make this point generally, in the Government’s view it addresses a broad range of points that have been made about the independent public advocate. The Government’s position is that we should not try to run before we can walk; let us set up this perfectly sensible scheme. At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and others, especially the Hillsborough families who have campaigned for a public advocate of this kind. We now have a scheme and a structure. Let us try it out and see how it goes. If it needs to be extended later to other sorts of incidents, smaller incidents, linked events or whatever, let us see how it goes first and then cross that bridge. Let us not be overeager to make this as extensive as possible from the outset. It is sensibly put together and, in the Government’s view, it is a good balance at the moment.
Those were the Government’s amendments. I turn now to the various amendments proposed by noble Lords, for which I thank them. Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seeks to allow the Secretary of State to declare a major incident in circumstances that fall short of the definition of a major incident. The Fishmongers’ Hall example was given in the debate. The Government’s view is that at this stage the scheme should be controlled so that it can focus on exceptional, single-time events. That is the essential drift of the amendment on major disasters. The Government do not believe it would be helpful to create an expectation that the IPA might be created to  support victims involved in small-scale incidents. If we take Fishmongers’ Hall as an example, sadly there were victims but mercifully a small number of them. The purpose of the independent public advocate is to support victims on a wider scale in major incidents. We are thinking of the Grenfell-type situation, essentially. I use that as an example. The Government do not believe at this stage that where there are very few injuries or fatalities, or isolated incidents, it would be right at this point to extend the schemes to those kinds of events.
The Secretary of State has a discretion under the Bill to declare a major incident. There may be a certain room for manoeuvre in terms of “significant”. What exactly is “significant”? I do not know. The Shoreham air disaster might be a bit on the edge—it could be significant, or perhaps not—but let us leave those sorts of decisions for the future. The Government intend to publish a policy statement that will provide more detail. It will include the public interest, but the Government are not yet in a position to accept the wider vision, if I may call it that, that lies behind Amendment 104 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
I come to Amendments 102 and 105, which are very dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I say again that we have had long discussions about these matters. If I may put it briefly, they essentially relate to two points. One is looking back to the past and making all these provisions retrospective. The other is extending the scope of the public advocate’s role to so-called linked events, when there is no single major incident but a series of small events that happen and have similarities or links between them. Amendments 102 and 105, and one or two related amendments, seek to extend the scope of the Bill to those kinds of situations.
We have looked very hard at this, and I thank the noble Lord for his care in trying to meet the Government’s points, but I have to say that we are still not in a position to agree the amendments. If we take retro- spectivity first, that is difficult in parliamentary terms. On the whole, there is a general presumption against retrospectivity in legislation. It raises the major point: how far back do we go and what do we cover? Do we go back to Aberfan or Piper Alpha? Do we go back to the Paddington train crash? You could go back for many years on all these sorts of things.
The Government do not feel that is the right approach, especially when the most major incidents that come to mind are already the subject of major public inquiries. Are we inventing a fifth wheel for the coach if we go back too far? Is it right to spread public resources backwards rather than forwards, which is what the Bill is supposed to do? The Government are not persuaded that it is right to look back, nor to go down the road of linked events because you would thereby bring an enormous range of cases within scope. It risks diluting the scheme, because it would then cover a lot of small cases, and detracting from dealing with major disasters, which is what we are driving at. That is the Government’s position on those two amendments.
Personally, I regret that the Government cannot go any further than I have just explained. But it is important to bear in mind, as I have just said, that the Government will review the situation, and if it turns out that it is feasible, correct and proportionate to extend this office—if  it turns out to be a great success—the review, once it is up and running, is an opportunity to re-debate this whole issue. At the moment, the Government’s view is: let us not run before we can walk.

Baroness Sanderson of Welton: My Lords, I thank the Government for the review. My own view is that while I would also like there to be some of the powers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, it is a position that will evolve over time. It is really important to have that review and right to recognise where the Government have moved, and I thank them for it.

Lord Bellamy: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. That is the Government’s position on Amendments 102 and 105.
Amendment 103, which is in the same group, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the emotional and financial interests of victims when deciding whether to declare a major incident. The Government’s view is that the definition of harm in the Bill already includes emotional harm, as in Clause 28(3). It is unlikely that financial harm would occur in isolation, without the other kinds of harms mentioned in the Bill. Certainly, harm is a major factor when the Secretary of State considers whether to declare a major incident, so the Government’s position is that Amendment 103 is not necessary.
Amendment 106 touches on the close family member point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. The question is how these days you define a close family member. The Government do not believe that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place to address that concern. In modern society, there is effectively no set structure for a family and the Government need flexibility to capture those who need support. In the Government’s view, the approach is best left to guidance and the discretion of the IPA concerned to provide that flexibility. Of course, the input of the noble Lord and others when we draft the guidance on what kind of indications should be given in it will be very valuable, rather than having it set out in advance in the technical structure of the Bill.
We then come to Amendments 107, 109 and 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Amendments 106A and 110ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These require the appointment of a standing advocate within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims and the provision of support so that the independent advocate will have all the support necessary.
As far as the period of six months to appoint is concerned, of course the Government share the noble Lord’s desire for the standing advocate to be in place as soon as possible once the Bill becomes law. But there has to be a fair and open competition for the office. As I hope the noble Lord will appreciate, the Government will want to carry out all relevant due diligence prior to the appointment. That process will take some time. In addition, I can confirm that the standing advocate will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee to ensure that the most appropriate candidate is appointed to the post. For those reasons, the Government do not feel that any change to the process is required at this time.  In particular, the six-month period would be unduly restricting considering the importance of the decision and the processes that have to be gone through, including parliamentary scrutiny. It would be far too tight.
As far as taking into account the views of victims as part of the appointment-making process is concerned, the Government certainly share this goal. When the functions of the standing advocate come to be undertaken, as outlined in Clause 29, the advocate will advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims, whether additional advocates are needed and whether to terminate et cetera. The Government are quite satisfied that the views of victims will, in the normal course, be gathered and fully considered on this topic.
It does not seem right to the Government that a formal consultation with the victims would be correct before these steps are taken, because that would have the potential to unduly delay matters. The general scheme of this part of the Bill is that the ground is already covered. There is no reason to suppose that victims will not be fully included in the various decisions that come to be made. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a policy statement and I will ensure that this covers the factors the Secretary of State will consider when making these decisions. This includes the participation of victims.
As far as secretarial and other support is concerned, the advocates will be supported by a permanent secretariat. The Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for this. Clause 31 provides an effective system of support for the IPA by making provision for a secretariat and remuneration. Work is already under way to provide for this secretariat and provide for the appropriate separation between the day-to-day functions of the ministry and this independent operation.
That essentially leaves Amendment 119AA, on which it has been indicated that the House’s opinion may be tested. It requires that, “within six months” of a major incident, the Secretary of State must announce whether he intends to establish an inquiry or similar fact-finding review and provide the reasons for his decision to Parliament. If he decides to establish a non-statutory inquiry, the person appointed must be given data-compelling powers.
I entirely take the noble Lord’s point that timeliness is important—it is extremely important and the Government recognise that—but the Government do not feel in a position to support the amendment in its present state because effectively it requires the Secretary of State to announce his intentions within six months. This can be an extremely difficult matter in practice. Take Lockerbie, for example. It may well take more than six months for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch to work out what has happened.
In the case of a terrorist attack, a security incident or an action by a hostile state, there may be all sorts of reasons why a Secretary of State should not be in the position of being required to announce anything publicly. Typically, criminal proceedings may well need to be completed before anything can be announced. If you want to ask what the Secretary of State’s intentions are, all you have to do, effectively, is ask a question in  Parliament. There are two Houses of Parliament and there is no reason why he should not be asked that question—so you do not really need this amendment.
On proposed new subsection (2), in the Government’s view it is something of a contradiction in terms to require a non-statutory inquiry to have statutory powers. This is potentially a major change in the structure of public inquiries and, in the Government’s view, it should not slip through by a sidewind. I hope I have covered most things.

Lord Wills: I am extremely grateful, as always, to the Minister for that thorough response to all my points. We made a little progress in Committee, for which I am grateful, as I am for the little progress we have made today. I am grateful to the Minister for the open way he has engaged with all these serious points. He will not be surprised that I am disappointed that we have not made further progress on some of the key points.
On the question of what the Minister regards as retrospectivity and the linked incidents, I had hoped I had made it clear that this is not a retrospective look at incidents that have finished—historic incidents that have no relevance to the present. The amendment refers specifically to continuing harm, which is what matters. It is not the incident itself that is significant but the consequences of the incident and the examination of the failures of the state and public authorities, which should have protected the victims but, for whatever reason, did not and let down the bereaved, who suffered grievous losses—that is the point. It is not retrospective. I of course understand the points about the sensitivity of retrospective legislation and all the rest of it—but this is not that.
It is really important—and I hope the Government will reflect on this—that we bear in mind that what this whole part addresses is an attempt to redress the deep imbalance of power between victims and the bereaved, on the one hand, and on the other the state and public authorities that failed them so grievously. That is the whole point of this, and we have seen it over and over again.
On the question of timeliness—and that is the point of the fact-finding inquiry—this is absolutely crucial, for so many different reasons. I remind your Lordships’ House of the points made in the very potent report from Bishop James on the lessons from Hillsborough. He made the point that, unless you get to the truth quickly, it creates a period of time in which the authorities that are in the frame can establish a false narrative, which is precisely what the police did at Hillsborough—and that is precisely what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was designed to try to get to the bottom of, as it did. It started the process by which those Hillsborough families finally got some form of justice for their decades- long struggle.
I am really baffled as to why the Government, when they have such a good example of a new process that actually worked for the bereaved, and worked in a way that one public inquiry, a de facto public inquiry, with all the scrutiny and the coroners’ inquests, did not. They all failed, for different reasons, and it was only the fact-finding inquiry that got somewhere towards the truth and got something like justice for those families.
I do not know why the Government want to put to one side a successful example, which was actually delivered under a Conservative Government. This is not a party issue: this was set up by a Labour Government and delivered under a Conservative Government. I am baffled—but I take comfort from the fact that the Minister has accepted the need for a review and left the door open, I hope intentionally, to addressing some of these points in future. I am still worried about the problem of the fact-finding inquiry, and for that reason I am minded to test the opinion of the House, when we reach that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 102.
Amendment 102 withdrawn.
Amendment 103 not moved.

Amendment 103A

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
103A: Clause 28, page 29, line 14, at end insert—“(2A) Before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident.
Amendment 103A agreed.
Amendments 104 to 106 not moved.

  
Clause 29: Appointment of standing advocate
  

Amendments 106A to 109 not moved.

  
Clause 30: Appointment of advocates in respect of major incidents

Amendment 109A

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
109A: Clause 30, page 30, line 23, at end insert—“(1A) Before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales.
Amendment 109A agreed.
Amendment 109B not moved.

  
Clause 31: Terms of appointment
  

Amendments 110 and 110ZA not moved.

  
Clause 36: Publication of reports

Amendment 110A

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
110A: Clause 36, page 34, line 37, at end insert “, or(g) prejudice—(i) the investigation or prosecution of an offence,(ii) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(iii) an inquest under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or  (iv) any other investigation or inquiry by a person exercising functions of a public nature.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment would allow the Secretary of State to omit material from a report to be published under Clause 36 where the Secretary of State considers that publication of that material would prejudice certain investigations, inquiries or inquests.
Amendment 110A agreed.

  
Clause 38: Guidance for advocates
  

Amendments 111 and 112 not moved.

Amendment 113

Baroness Thornton: Moved by Baroness Thornton
113: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—“Major incidents: duty of candour(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—(a) in the public interest, and(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—(a) relating to their own activities, or(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must—(a) act with proper expedition,(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,(c) act without favour to their own position,(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but may not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) must—(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security, and(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) will be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion.(7) Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”Member’s explanatory statement  This new clause would require public authorities, public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 113 on the duty of candour in place of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I took the time to read the reasons why the Minister did not want us to proceed with this in Committee. I remind the noble Earl that we agreed about the duty of candour in 2014 when we put it on the statute book, in, I suspect, the very large Bill of the now noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the reorganisation of the NHS, or one that followed shortly after. The whole House agreed that the duty of candour was an important matter within the NHS, and it has become part of the culture of our NHS. I should perhaps declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Whittington Hospital and part of its governance structure.
This amendment seeks to extend that duty to all public organisations—I thank Inquest and others for their briefings—to cover those operating across all public services. This has been Labour policy for some considerable time. Inquest believes, as we do, that there is an urgent need to introduce a duty of candour for those operating across all public services. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny, including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths, in a candid and transparent manner. We are talking about major incidents here, so this is very important. This duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their role diligently, while empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.
In Committee, the Minister said that he thought this could
“give rise to many difficult and conflicting views, making the whole process almost impossible to manage and drawing civil servants into conflict with each other and their employers
It seems to me that a duty of candour does exactly the opposite: it actually allows for a transparent discussion about what might have gone wrong.
I am not going to go into any more detail, because we had a very good discussion about this in Committee. However, Justice’s report When Things Go Wrong found that
“In both inquests and inquiries, lack of candour and institutional defensiveness on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability”.
If noble Lords think back to Hillsborough and other inquiries, how true that statement is. That is why this is important.
Bishpop James Jones concluded that South Yorkshire Police’s
“repeated failure to fully and unequivocally accept the findings of independent inquiries and reviews has undoubtedly caused pain to the bereaved families”.
That is the point of this amendment. Failure to make full disclosure and to act with transparency can lead to lengthy delays in investigations and inquiries, and  actually make things so much worse for the victims involved. A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance the participation of bereaved people and survivors by ensuring that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, limiting, we hope, the possibility of evasiveness. I beg to move.

Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester is also a strong supporter of this amendment, which he has signed, and he regrets that he cannot be in his place today to speak to it himself.
As we have heard, six years ago, the former Bishop of Liverpool published his report on the Hillsborough disaster, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. This report recommended the introduction of a duty of candour for the police, which was adopted in the College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing only earlier this year. I am glad that issuing a code of practice for ethical policing will become a statutory duty under the Criminal Justice Bill, but this is just one body. A duty of candour needs to apply to all public authorities. More often than not, crises, scandals and disasters which require an inquiry involve multiple, overlapping public agencies, all of which need to be under the same compulsory responsibility to act with transparency for that inquiry to be fully effective.
A duty of candour would challenge the instinct of institutions to focus primarily on reputation management in the wake of crises. This instinct leads only to more suffering and delay for affected persons. There is also a more pervasive effect whereby institutions are unwilling to be candid about their failures, so it is extremely difficult to learn from past mistakes. I do not believe that a duty would solve every problem, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
The Minister suggested in Committee that the creation of an independent public advocate would go some way to addressing the power imbalances that this duty of candour seeks to address. I welcome the inclusion of the IPA within the Bill, but its creation does not automatically mean that all public bodies will be miraculously compelled to act with candour, without a statutory duty. I welcome these duties, but surely it would be simpler and easier to include a general duty for all public bodies as part of this Bill rather than taking a piecemeal approach. It would also have the welcome effect of changing attitudes and behaviour in public bodies across the board. The Minister said in Committee:
“At no point are transparency and candour more important than in the aftermath of a major incident.”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 817.]
Will he reiterate that statement today by committing to a statutory duty of candour for all public authorities?

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I have also signed Amendment 113. I will not repeat everything  that I said in Committee, but the experience of the duty of candour in the NHS has been a very useful example. As we have heard, it is a professional responsibility to be open and honest with patients and families when something has gone wrong. It also allows people to say sorry. Even in the NHS, the lawyers still do not want people to say sorry, but it is really important. Above all, where the duty of candour works well, it has changed the culture and values of the organisation.
I make that point because this is not just about after the event. Having a duty of candour can completely change the delivery of the service. It makes everybody who works in it—and, in the NHS, those who are regulated—behave and think differently. In exceptional examples, it will avoid disasters, which is important. That is why I support Amendment 113. It clearly does not work perfectly, because we are hearing stories of things that have gone badly wrong in hospitals, but I suspect that some of those would not have come out if the duty of candour were not in place. That is what I mean about a change of culture.
I will not say much more. Now is absolutely the time to expand the duty of candour beyond the NHS. I agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate said about making sure that it applies to all public bodies and to public servants, because this is also about the behaviour of senior individuals. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, wishes to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 113. As she explained, it seeks to place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials after a major incident has been declared in writing by the Secretary of State.
The Government wholeheartedly agree that it is of the highest importance that we combat unforgivable forms of institutional obstruction and obfuscation. It is exactly for that reason that the Deputy Prime Minister signed the Hillsborough charter on behalf of the Government, which specifically addresses placing the public interest above one’s own reputation and approaching all forms of public scrutiny, including public inquiries and inquests, with candour and in an open, honest and transparent way. We want the charter to become part of the culture of what it means to be a public servant in Britain. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all departments to ensure that everyone who works in government is aware of the Hillsborough charter and what it means for the way that they work. Information on the charter has already been added to the Government’s propriety and ethics training and will shortly form part of the induction that all new civil servants are expected to take.
We are determined that the charter and its principles should be embedded into public life, and we are encouraging other public bodies and local authorities to follow our example by doing the same—a number of them have done so.
When it comes to statutory duties of candour, which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others, the Government have taken strong and decisive actions in policing and in health and social care. However, different parts of the public  sector have different roles and circumstances. This amendment seeks to capture everyone under one umbrella. While I recognise the good intention behind it, I do not believe—and nor do the Government—that in practice, it would be as effective or as proportionate a measure.
That is not to say that there is nothing in place already to bind other public servants. On the contrary, a very clear framework of legal and ethical duties most certainly exists, and the Government believe that this framework—which includes the Nolan principles on public life and the Civil Service Code—is fit for purpose and appropriate to reflect the myriad professional functions performed by the public sector.
The noble Baroness may argue that given the complexity of the existing framework, this amendment serves to bring it all together in one place, making it all more accessible and easier to understand. If she argues that, I am afraid I cannot agree. The amendment just cannot sit neatly on top of the existing frameworks. We should not just assume that it can work with the existing framework of duties, which are carefully calibrated for the specific circumstance that they bite on.
Given that no one wants to abandon the Nolan principles or the Civil Service Code, that poses a real problem. The Government firmly believe in the benefits of having a bespoke approach to different parts of the public sector, because each part is different. We are not convinced that a single overarching duty would work well in practice.
It is clear from our debates on the subject that a particular concern is the conduct of public officials at inquests and statutory inquiries. It is very important to understand something about those particular contexts. I can confirm that, regardless of one’s status or profession, powers already exist—backed by criminal penalties—to obtain documents and testimony in an inquest or statutory inquiry. As noble Lords will know, the same is true of court proceedings, where relevant disclosure is required by all litigants. If the concern here is primarily inquests, inquiries, and the like, it is unclear what this amendment would add.
As Bishop James himself acknowledged, this is an extremely complex area, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He also said that the most important thing is for all bodies who sign up to the charter to
“make the behaviours described in the charter a reality in practice”.
In my view, it would be unwise to rush forward with an amendment like this one. I believe that it would be disruptive; it would not work well in practice; and it could also have consequences which have not yet been realised. If we are going to put further statutory duties in place, the subject needs a lot more thought by a lot more people. I emphasise that the Government share the desire to see an end to unacceptable institutional defensiveness, but the key to doing that is to focus on changing culture across the public sector.
Let us make progress on our commitments in the Hillsborough charter, and indeed elsewhere; let us monitor how they are embedding. If we believe that there are further issues to address, we will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will reflect and perhaps feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the noble Earl for his usual comprehensive and very straightforward summing up, but we do not agree with him.
Part of the problem is that, although the Hillsborough charter may be comprehensive, a large part of it is voluntary. What we are discussing is something that covers everybody. Frankly, if a duty of candour can be applied equally in a hospital to the most senior consultant and a porter, I cannot see why it cannot be applied in this case to everybody. I am a non-executive director, and my chair and I both have the same duty of candour within the NHS, wherever we work and whatever we do. A duty of candour is not a silver bullet—I absolutely accept that it is often very tough to implement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows—but it can change an organisation over a period of time.
The noble Earl himself has found many ways to achieve many things in his public duty, including the duty of candour in the NHS. It must be possible to say that all public servants should be bound by a duty of candour and to ensure that it is possible to do that regardless of whatever codes they are following and whatever they are doing.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Apart from inquests and statutory inquiries, what are the circumstances in which she expects this to be necessary?

Baroness Thornton: Earlier in the debate, it was quite clear from our discussions about the report on Hillsborough that it should cover everybody who gives evidence and is involved in an inquiry or whatever arises out of a serious incident. That is what we are seeking to do. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 238, Noes 217.

Amendment 113 agreed.

Amendment 114

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
114: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—“Code for victims of major incidents(1) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided to victims of major incidents by persons having functions relating to—  (a) victims of major incidents, or(b) any aspect of official inquiries and investigations following a major incident.(2) In this Part, the “code for victims of major incidents” means the code of practice issued under this section.(3) The code for victims of major incidents must make provisions for services which reflect the principles that victims of major incidents—(a) must be provided with information to help them understand the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim;(b) must be able to access services which support them (including, where appropriate, specialist services);(c) must have the opportunity to make their views heard in the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim;(d) must be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them, other than through judicial review.(4) The Secretary of State may by way of regulations make further provision about the code for victims of major incidents of which a draft must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (4) only if satisfied that provisions made in the code for victims of major incidents in compliance with the regulations would not result in—(a) a significant reduction in the quality or extent of the services provided in accordance with the code for victims of major incidents,(b) a significant restriction in the description of persons to whom services are provided in accordance with the code for victims of major incidents,(c) a significant restriction in the description of persons having functions in relation to victims of major incidents or any aspect of official inquiries and investigations following a major incident, or(d) a reduction of the involvement of victims of major incidents in the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim.(6) The code for victims of major incidents may make different provision for different purposes, including different provision for—(a) victims of different descriptions;(b) persons who have different functions of a kind mentioned in subsection (1).(7) The code for victims of major incidents may not require anything to be done by a person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.”

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, this group concerns the victims’ code for major incidents. In speaking to Amendment 114, I am speaking to all the other amendments in this group as well.
We believe that this Bill represents a missed opportunity to extend entitlements of the victims’ code to victims of major incidents. Victims of major incidents will have suffered serious harm, often at the hands of state or corporate bodies. However, they do not receive the same recognition from government as victims of crime and so are not entitled to the same minimum level of support and services. Instead, they are often expected to navigate complex legal processes with little recognition of the harm they have suffered or the trauma they have faced. While the position of victims in the criminal justice system is far from perfect, as I have mentioned,  organisations working with bereaved families have flagged a distinct lack of support for victims in the contexts of inquests and inquiries.
There is no principled reason to focus on improving the experience of victims in one context over another, while failing properly to recognise the needs and experiences of victims in a non-criminal context. It is also worth recalling that inquests and inquiries, particularly those relating to major incidents as defined by the Bill, often run concurrently with or prior to criminal investigations, allowing certain minimum entitlements in one process and not the other. This risks undermining the confidence of victims in both systems. There is little use in trying to ensure that individuals are supported through and engaged with the criminal process when they are at risk of being—or have already been—let down by a separate legal process addressing the same events. This provides an additional justification for affording victims in the inquests and inquiries contexts similar minimum entitlements to those in a criminal justice setting. Failing to do so is not only unfair but runs counter to the Government’s stated aim of ensuring that victims have confidence that they will be treated in a way they should rightly expect. I beg to move Amendment 114.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 114 to 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which I supported in Committee and support again.
To those of us on these Benches, there seems to be no justification for limiting the protection and support for the victims granted in this Bill by the requirements for a victims’ code to victims of crime. It is not a massively radical step to produce an additional victims’ code for victims of major incidents which would give similar protections to those provided by the victims’ code for victims of crime—but tailored to victims of major incidents.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes the important scheme that we have been discussing for advocates of victims of major incidents. What it does not do is provide the necessary signposting for victims of major incidents to the assistance that they need—assistance of all types wherever available. There are particular issues for victims of major incidents and their families that do not necessarily arise for victims of crime, to do with accessing medical, psychological, financial and social help, among other things, in the wake of such incidents. The issues may be similar, but they are not completely overlapping.
Dealing with issues of bereavement and support for families following injury, dealing with issues connected with investigating and establishing responsibility for major incidents—these issues are very different in some cases from those facing victims of crime. However, there is no material difference in the need or justification for a separate code for victims of major incidents. If this Bill is a victims Bill, it should cover victims of major incidents as well.
On these Benches, we cannot see why we do not take the opportunity with this Bill of laying the ground for a similar code for victims of major incidents. I look forward to hearing how the Minister justifies passing up that opportunity.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for these amendments. While the Government understand the intention behind these amendments, we have not been convinced that they are necessary. Existing codes and the establishment of the independent public advocate deliver on many of these amendments’ aims. It may be helpful if I outline the Government’s rationale.
First, we have concerns over the application of this new code. As proposed, the code would apply only to those individuals who are considered victims of major incidents under the definition in this Bill. However, as this Bill is not retrospective, there are currently no victims under this definition. It would be premature to create such a code under the circumstances and we may lack the evidential basis for it at this time.
Secondly, the key aims of the proposed code directly align with the purpose of the independent public advocate, and it is therefore unnecessary. The IPA will help to ensure that victims understand the subsequent investigatory processes. They will help to signpost victims to appropriate support services and play a pivotal role in ensuring that the victims are able to challenge decisions and raise concerns, as part of their role will be to act as a conduit to government, to ensure that the victims are heard in order to effect change in real time.
Thirdly, as we noted in Committee, it is very likely that in many circumstances where a major incident is declared and an advocate is appointed, the victims will be victims of crime or criminal conduct. In these instances, they are already covered under the victims’ code, which sets out the services and support that victims of crime can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. An additional code for victims of a major incident may therefore be duplicative and as such counterproductive.
As noble Lords highlighted in Committee, there will be incidents to which the existing victims’ code does not apply. However, the Government believe that this subsection of victims will be covered by the introduction of the Hillsborough charter. This charter commits its signatories to place the public interest first and to approach all forms of public scrutiny, including public inquests and inquiries, with candour and in an open, honest and transparent way, making full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts. Additionally, the charter ensures that its signatories are accountable and open to challenge.
In answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the Bill sends a clear signal about what victims can and should expect by placing the overarching principles of the victims’ code into law. It includes a statutory duty on criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the victims’ code. We are also placing a statutory duty on relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims’ code unless there is a good reason not to. The Government expect that the standing advocate will hold others to account, based on the principles of the Hillsborough charter. This will give victims confidence in their ability to challenge those in authority, should they wish to. The charter and the proposed code for  victims of major incidents bear many similarities. The Government therefore remain unconvinced of the merits of this proposal and the necessity of establishing a new code.
I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment 114 and not to move Amendments 115 to 117.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, these were probing amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support and for the arguments which he advanced. It seemed to me that the gist of the Minister’s response was that there was a lack of evidential basis for the requirements, which I outlined in my amendments. That may well be the case, but I did not hear from the Minister any desire to get that evidential basis, to keep the matter open. Nevertheless, I will withdraw this amendment. It may be a recurring theme in future Bills. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 114.
Amendment 114 withdrawn.
Amendments 115 to 117 not moved.

Amendment 118

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
118: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—“Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident(1) Section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “(4)” insert “or (7).”(3) After subsection (6), insert—“(7) This subsection is satisfied where—(a) the services consist of advocacy at an inquest where the individual is an interested person pursuant to section 47(2)(a), (b) or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 because of their relationship to the deceased, and(b) one or more public authorities are interested persons in relation to the inquest pursuant to section 47(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 or are likely to be designated as such.(8) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the meaning given by section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.””

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, Amendment 118 opens this seventh group. It concerns publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident. We would have preferred to table an amendment extending publicly funded legal representation to all bereaved people at inquests, but I understand that was not in scope. It has been a long-standing Labour commitment to extend publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people.
The current funding scheme allows state bodies unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families often face a complex and demanding funding application process. Many are forced to pay large sums of money towards legal costs or represent themselves during this process. Others use crowdfunding. The Bill would represent a tiny  opportunity to raise the need to positively shape the inquest system for bereaved people by establishing in law the principle of the equality of arms between families and public authority interested persons.
It is no longer conscionable to continue to deny bereaved families publicly funded legal representation while public bodies are legally represented. Without automatic access to non-means-tested legal aid, bereaved families are denied their voice and any meaningful role. The absence of representation weakens investigations into state action; funded representation of the bereaved can safeguard lives and ensure that mistakes or harmful practices are brought to light. I beg to move.

Lord Wills: My Lords, Amendment 119 seeks to establish a code of practice for post-mortem processes. It arises out of a traumatic event suffered by Jenni Hicks, who lost her daughters Vicki and Sarah in the Hillsborough tragedy.
Perhaps the best way for your Lordships to understand the need for this amendment is to hear in Jenni Hicks’s own words what happened. This is how she described it in an email sent on 5 November 2022:
“I was asked if I would like to see 7 post, post mortem photographs of Vicki and 5 post, post mortem photographs of Sarah. I was warned they were both graphic and not pleasant. However, because of the 33yrs of lies, corruption, deception and lack of trust surrounding my daughters’ deaths, I chose to view them. I was shocked these photographs were in the hands of operation resolve. I’m aware the pathologists would have taken photographs to assist with causation of death and also to assist in writing the pathology reports. But, and it’s a huge but, I had assumed such graphic and sensitive photographs of naked bodies, including genitalia, would have been kept in a secure and safe environment. Not on a police computer”.
Moreover, as I understand it, the relevant injuries were to the head, and the genitalia were not pixelated, which they could easily have been. How could this have happened? These images existed for decades and, of all the many people who would have viewed them, not one of them thought, “This is not right”. It shows no respect for the dignity of the victims, who were young teenage girls. Why did not one person think that this was unacceptable? Not one did. If these had been the daughters of the people who had seen these images, year after year, one assumes that they would have been as profoundly upset and outraged as Jenni Hicks was. But they were not their daughters, so apparently no one cared. This unacceptable situation continued for decades.
For the most part, for whatever reason—and there may be many—a process of desensitisation often takes place in public authorities in the wake of major incidents such as this and on other occasions, apparently. This amendment seeks to put this right.
This amendment tries to address what is clearly an urgent need for a statutory code of conduct to preserve the dignity of the deceased and respect for the feelings of the bereaved. This is a probing amendment, as the Minister is aware. I understand that the Home Office is conducting a review to that end, so I assume that the Minister will want to await its outcome before deciding how to proceed. However, I would be grateful if he could confirm that the Government understand that this was unacceptable, that it must never recur and that they will give any new code of conduct the force of statute.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. On Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, it is accepted that the whole question of publicly funded representation at inquests has been a grave injustice for many years. Amendment 118 seeks to correct that injustice, which involves a huge imbalance between the families of victims, public bodies and companies that are liable to be blamed for deaths. All those have representation that they can afford, whereas the families and bereaved do not. That injustice should be put right and this amendment seeks to achieve that.
For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I support his amendment on the post-mortem process and the code of practice designed to preserve the dignity of the deceased. But I would go a little further: the code of practice needs to look at the whole process that precedes the public part of the inquest.
In recent months, in two separate cases, I have helped the parents and the widow of victims of medical accidents. They have had real difficulties in getting at the truth and securing pathologists’ reports and post-mortem reports from the coroner’s office. Swift availability of such reports and swift disclosure to bereaved parents and families are of great importance. If this amendment were to see the light of day—I understand that it is only probing—I would suggest that the code of practice should go wider than simply preserving the dignity of the bodies to ensuring that bereaved families are not further hurt by avoidable delay, making that history.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the amendment on the way that bodies are dealt with following a disaster is incredibly important. I remind the House of the “Marchioness” disaster back in 1989; there was an absolute outcry from the relatives about the way that some of those bodies were dealt with. The problem is that their grief is complicated when they hit different barriers and when they feel that the investigation and the post-mortem have been conducted inappropriately, particularly if they feel that things are being withheld from them.
To ensure that we provide support for these relatives, we need to make sure that there is a proper code of conduct and to improve the way that things are dealt with. I therefore think that this is an important probing amendment. I am glad that it is probing, because there are lots of things that could be altered and improved, but this work needs to be done and I hope the Minister will provide us with that assurance.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for Amendment 118, which extends legal aid to inquests. I completely understand the point that is being made, but the Government’s position is that the effect of the amendment is extremely broad and would give all interested persons the entitlement to free legal support and representation in any inquest, regardless of whether or not it follows a major incident, provided that at least one public authority was also an interested person. So, because of its width, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
In addition, the Government are already considering access to legal aid at inquests following major incidents. That is notably in response to Bishop James’s 2017  Hillsborough report. The MoJ is consulting on expanding free legal aid that is available for bereaved families at inquests following a major incident under this legislation and following terrorist attacks. In the Government’s view, the amendment goes beyond its stated purpose and the Government are already acting to deal with the issue of legal aid at inquests, so I respectfully urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, a probing amendment. I am sure that everyone was moved by the description of the experience of Jenni Hicks, which was recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I was very sorry to hear about that experience. We very much appreciate the effect this must have had on Mrs Hicks and other families affected. In the Government’s view, Jenni Hicks and others are entirely right to have raised the issue in this Chamber. It is an issue that requires proper consideration. I know that Operation Resolve itself very much regrets the anguish and distress caused by the incident, and has offered its apologies. The officer in overall command has written to them setting out the actions taken to address their concerns, and last year I think the Policing Minister met with the families affected. The Home Office has been assured that appropriate procedures are now in place.
As to the wider issue, the Government entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment—that this kind of thing is unacceptable. I say that on behalf of the Government. It is true that there is already wide-ranging guidance for police, pathologists, coroners and others; this includes guidance by the College of Policing, by the Home Office in partnership with the Royal College of Pathologists, by the Chief Coroner and by NHS trusts.
However, it is also the case that the victims were failed in this particular instance, and the Government have commissioned an independent forensic pathology review—I think it is Mr Glenn Taylor who is conducting this—which is expected to report to the Home Secretary in the summer. In the light of that review, the Government will carefully consider its findings and the whole question of the processes. I hear the point made about the “Marchioness” incident—that is one that particularly sticks in one’s memory—and indeed the point made about the whole process of disclosure in other cases of medical difficulty in the NHS, how to get hold of reports and matters of that kind.
I can assure the House that this matter is on the Government’s radar and will be examined most carefully and widely, once the findings of the independent forensic pathology review are available.

Lord Wills: Can I just clarify this? I think the Minister accepts how serious an incident this was; I think it is accepted that this sort of contempt for the victims and the bereaved is probably pretty widespread, and that something has to be done to make sure it never happens again. Will he confirm that whatever code of conduct emerges from the processes he describes will be given the force of statute?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I am not at this moment in a position to give that confirmation at the Dispatch Box. I will give further thought to it, and  write to the noble Lord in due course as to whether the Government are in a position to give that assurance. I see the force of the point.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I acknowledge the points that the Minister made on my Amendment 118, about the existing consultation that the Government are doing and the broadness of the amendment. What was contained in the amendment was an aspiration, I suppose.
My noble friend spoke to Amendment 119 and gave the very moving example of Jenni Hicks. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also reminded us of the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. Here again, the Minister said that the independent pathology review will look at processes. We look forward to what may come out of that, and to the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s question about whether it will have the force of statute. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 118.
Amendment 118 withdrawn.
Amendment 119 not moved.

Amendment 119A

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
119A: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—“Review of Part 2(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the review period—(a) prepare and publish a report about the operation in the review period of this Part, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(2) The “review period” is the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the power in section 30(1) (appointment of advocate in respect of major incident) is first exercised.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of Part 2 in the period of 18 months following the first time an advocate is appointed under Clause 30.
Amendment 119A agreed.

Amendment 119AA

Lord Wills: Moved by Lord Wills
119AA: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—“Power of Secretary of State to establish an inquiry on major incidents(1) Within six months of the declaration of a major incident under section 28(2), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons on whether they intend to establish—(a) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(b) an alternative fact-finding inquiry, or(c) no inquiry at that time.(2) A person or persons appointed to hold an inquiry established under subsection (1)(b) must be granted the powers to see and report on all relevant documentation.(3) A statement under subsection (1) must set out why the Secretary of State believes the decision is in the public interest.  (4) In consideration of the public interest, the Secretary of State must demonstrate that they have had regard to timeliness, cost, transparency and the emotional and financial interests of the parties.”

Lord Wills: My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say about this amendment, but in view of the seriousness of what is involved here, the timeliness of a resolution for victims and the bereaved, and the cost to the taxpayer, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 209, Noes 209.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Amendment 119AA disagreed.

  
Clause 40: Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal

Amendment 119B

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119B: Leave out Clause 40 and insert the following Clause—“Infected Blood Compensation Authority(1) A body corporate called the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is established.(2) In this Part that body is referred to as “the IBCA”.(3) Schedule (Infected Blood Compensation Authority) contains further provision about the IBCA.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause establishes the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I will speak also to the other government amendments in this group. I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so. These amendments collectively provide the necessary legal framework to establish an arm’s-length body and pay compensation without undue delay. Let me assure the House and those listening that the case for compensation is clear and the Government will pay compensation to those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. The government amendments demonstrate our absolute commitment to deliver long-overdue justice to victims of infected blood.
On 20 May, the infected blood inquiry will publish its final report. This will be a historic day for those who have sought answers for decades, and I hope and trust that the inquiry will give those impacted the recognition that they deserve. I take this opportunity to thank the chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, for the thorough work that he has undertaken to produce his final report and to recognise the bravery of those who have provided evidence and testimony to the inquiry. I recognise the resilience of each person who continues to campaign on this issue, and I hope my words today will provide reassurance that we are moving in the right direction. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for working with the Government  to ensure that the amendments provide the legal framework to get this right. My firm intention today is to provide some meaningful reassurance that we have heard the concerns and are committed to establishing a scheme that works and delivers for victims.
Let me turn to the government amendments. These amendments impose a duty on the Government to establish an infected blood compensation scheme. They also establish a new arm’s-length body named the infected blood compensation authority to deliver the compensation scheme. The authority will operate on a UK-wide basis to ensure parity and consistency. Perhaps I can make it clear in passing that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, should not have appeared with that of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy at the top of Amendment 119C. I understand this was a clerical slip of the pen.
Victims of this scandal have waited far too long to see justice, and the Government share the determination of your Lordships to ensure that compensation reaches victims quickly. The government amendments pave the way for this, with early commencement provisions establishing the arm’s-length body on Royal Assent. The Government will give a substantive update to Parliament responding to the infected blood inquiry’s recommendations on compensation as soon as possible following 20 May. Subsequently, the details of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. The regulations to establish the scheme are subject to the “made affirmative” procedure the first time that they are made, which means they will have legal force immediately, and to the draft affirmative procedure thereafter, which applies to any changes to that first set of regulations that may be made in the future. This will provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s intentions without any unnecessary delay to implementation. Operational matters around the setting up of the arm’s-length body are subject to the negative procedure, again to prioritise the speed of implementation.
We recognise that Parliament and the infected blood community need clarity on when these measures will be in place. I can say now that the Government support the Opposition’s amendment to deliver the regulations establishing an infected blood compensation scheme within three months of Royal Assent, and we are committed to doing so. However, in committing to that, it is right that I should signal a caveat on a purely practical issue. We must acknowledge that the three-month period could unavoidably include periods or circumstances in which the Dissolution, Prorogation or adjournment of Parliament affects the Government’s ability to make the regulations. There is a practical reality here. These “made affirmative” regulations will need to be agreed within government before they can be made, and there are operational processes that simply will not be running as normal when Parliament is not sitting.
There is also the challenge, that I am sure many noble Lords will speak to, that we need to build trust with the infected blood community on the scheme’s provisions. This would require sufficient time where both Ministers and Parliament were available ahead of regulations being laid. We had hoped by tabling Amendment 157CA that we could find a constructive compromise on those issues. However, with a view  to consensus and having accepted the Opposition’s Amendment 119CA, we will not now put that amendment to the House.
I must be clear that we are seized of the need to move as quickly as possible to provide compensation for victims regardless of any external pressures that may arise. Noble Lords will understand that it will take some time for the new infected blood compensation authority to become operational in its fullest sense, such that—

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Before the Minister moves on from addressing my Amendment 119CA, I want just to be crystal clear that the Government are accepting the amendment without their own amendment. I understand what the noble Earl has just said from the Dispatch Box, but as far as my amendment is concerned, are the Government accepting it as it is?

Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, that is right. In the spirit of consensus, albeit in the light of that practical caveat that I voiced, which represents a risk and no more.
It will take some time for the new infected blood compensation authority to become operational in its fullest sense, such that it is in a position to accept applications and deliver payments. There are formal processes around setting up an arm’s-length body of this kind which we cannot—indeed, must not—try to get around. However, the Government recognise the need to compensate victims of infected blood, and we are absolutely committed to doing this as quickly as we are able. For this reason, a shadow body will be established by 20 May, led by an interim chief executive. This will be critical to getting the practical work in place to ensure that the infected blood compensation authority can be fully operational as soon as possible. The shadow body will be able to begin work, such as implementing IT systems and appointing staff who are needed for assessing and delivering compensation payments, as quickly as possible.
We also understand the importance of ensuring that processes are in place for the compensation scheme to run smoothly. The Government are therefore clear that the infected blood compensation authority will have all the funding needed to deliver compensation once it has identified the victims and assessed claims. Once established, we intend that the scheme will make payments quickly and effectively.
I now turn to the membership of the infected blood compensation authority board and, in doing so, perhaps I may address Amendments 121B to 121H tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Meacher. I would like to be clear with the House today that it is the Government’s intention that the process of recruiting a chair of the infected blood compensation authority will begin immediately. In the coming weeks, we will begin to identify potential candidates for the role. The successful candidate will be appointed through the usual public appointment process. The government amendment provides flexibility for the composition of the other members of the board, both executive and non-executive, albeit that minimum and maximum numbers are specified to align with the expected requirements of an ALB of  this nature. As many noble Lords have made clear, building trust with those infected and affected by the scandal is critical. It is therefore the Government’s intention to involve the infected blood community in the appointment process for the chair.
Tomorrow the Minister for the Cabinet Office begins his engagement programme with those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. That will be a useful opportunity to discuss how those impacted can be involved in the process of appointing the chair, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently delay the end goal of getting compensation into the hands of victims as soon as possible. I think we can achieve both objectives.
We have not currently stipulated a timeline for the appointment of the chair or mandated in legislation that it should be a High Court judge—a point that I know many noble Lords feel strongly about. I shall explain the thinking behind that. The first point to make is that whoever is appointed as chair must be the person best suited for the role. We therefore want to ensure that the most suitable candidates have the opportunity to apply for the role and transition from any prior commitments. We are entirely open to the idea that the person appointed should be a High Court judge, but it is essential that the right candidate is selected. In that context, we want to give proper consideration to the input that we receive from those who will be accessing the scheme. We will ensure that Parliament is regularly updated as we progress this work.
In addition to the set-up of the scheme, we recognise that Sir Brian Langstaff has made it clear that the infected blood community and those accessing the scheme should have a role to play in its delivery. The Government agree that it is critical for those infected and affected to have a role in the infected blood compensation authority. Noble Lords will note that government Amendment 121A provides for the infected blood compensation authority to establish committees and sub-committees. The Government intend to utilise the provision for committees or sub-committees to ensure that there is representation of the infected blood community on these groups. I say emphatically that we want to work collaboratively with stakeholders to achieve the right outcome.
I turn to interim payments and, in doing so, take the opportunity to speak to Amendments 119X, 119Y and 119YB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The government amendments place a new statutory duty to make interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of the deceased infected people who were registered with existing or former support schemes. This would apply where previous interim payments have not already been made to infected individuals or their bereaved partners. The noble Baroness spoke powerfully on this issue in Committee. I believe this is an important step forward to get substantial compensation into the hands of families of victims of infected blood, pending the establishment of the final compensation scheme.
We recognise that this is not a precise replication of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation 12, which I understand was the noble Baroness’s intention. However, we have given this issue a great deal of thought and  our view is that it is the most practicable solution for providing compensation for deaths that have not yet been recognised. Our proposal avoids the state otherwise interfering with the will of a person who has died as a result of infected blood, or departing from long-established intestacy rules that ensure appropriate tiered distribution among a deceased’s family.
I know that many noble Lords are concerned about when the interim payments will be made. The Cabinet Office is working closely with the existing infected blood support schemes, departments across Whitehall and the devolved Administrations to ensure that the necessary practicalities are in place to make these payments as soon as possible following Royal Assent. It is worth acknowledging that the previous interim payments of £100,000 to those infected and bereaved partners registered with existing support schemes were made through existing support schemes that had staff and administrative bodies in place. The payments were made to people already known to the support schemes and nevertheless took around three months to operationalise and pay.
I am not in the business of prolonging people’s uncertainty unnecessarily. It is critical that we are transparent with those impacted about when they can expect compensation. I must therefore be realistic about the scope of this undertaking. We must move quickly and we are taking practical steps to do so, but it would not be right for me to commit to timeframes that are just not deliverable. For that reason, the Government will also be setting out clearly the next steps for establishing the compensation scheme following the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s final report on 20 May.
Each week, people are dying as a result of their infections and it is not our intention to add to the personal distress and suffering that those people and their families are facing. It is therefore the Government’s intention that, once the infected blood compensation authority is established, those people who are registered with the infected blood support schemes and living with chronic infections will be prioritised by the compensation scheme. No duplication of registration processes will be required. We will work with the existing infected blood support schemes, which the majority of people living with chronic infections are registered with, and with parliamentarians to provide regular updates and clear communication as the compensation scheme develops.
We understand that many people are not currently registered with the infected blood support schemes. The cohorts who are not currently registered with any such schemes but will be eligible for the compensation scheme will be able to register and make themselves known to the Government following the substantive update after the publication of the final report.
We have a debate ahead of us and there is still much to be done. It is the Government’s duty and responsibility to provide clarity and reassurance to those who have been failed by the state. I hope to provide further reassurance in response to amendments that have been tabled. In closing, I pay tribute to those who continue to campaign and who have brought us to the point that we are at today. We must do this right and we  must do it quickly. The government amendments allow us to do that and I respectfully request that noble Lords support them. I beg to move.

Amendment 119BA (as an amendment to Amendment 119B)

Baroness Meacher: Moved by Baroness Meacher
119BA: After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) In exercising its functions the IBCA must have regard to the following matters—(a) the need for swift and fair redress to victims;(b) the ease of accessibility to the relevant compensation scheme;(c) the efficient and effective operation of the relevant compensation scheme.”

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I rise to respond to the Minister’s remarks and thank him for his commitment to make conversation available to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal. However, I also express concern that we do not have any clear dates even for the appointment of the chair of the body that is yet to be established in order to begin to provide these compensation payments. These people have been waiting and waiting for decades. They need urgency and speed and I argue that the Minister, in order to win their trust, needs to set out early dates by which they can expect to receive compensation.
I am concerned that victims who have already had access to the derisory compensation programmes that have been made available might not be entitled to the Government’s new compensation programme. I hope I am wrong about that, but I do have some concern. There has been the most appalling neglect of these victims and really quite derisory payments—in so far as anything has been paid to them at all. With those concerns, I thank the Minister for his comments.
One of my concerns is that the regulations must not put a time limit on people making an application for compensation, so I propose that amendment to the House. It is vital that these victims are not penalised if they do not meet some arbitrary deadline. I beg to move.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I call the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is taking part remotely.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton: My Lords, I declare an interest as my first husband, Graham Ingleson, died from infected factor 8 in the early 1980s, aged 32. I welcome the Government’s amendments and am really grateful for the significant time the Minister has given me since Committee to understand the concerns of the infected blood community and to look at ways to address them in the Bill. The Government have shown signs that they are listening as we know from the proposals before us, including provision for interim payments. As we heard in the debate on the Government’s Statement last week, they acknowledge that the community must have a role in the infected blood compensation authority itself, including now, we hear, on the interview panel for the chair.
The Government’s amendments are a good start, but the infected blood community still has significant concerns. For example, the last-minute Amendment 157CA does not go far enough. Other concerns are reflected in the suite of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Brinton and Lady Featherstone. I have added my name to Amendments 119BA, 119CA, 119MA, 119T, 119PA, 119Y, 121B, 121G—now replaced by 121GA— and 121H, and support the intent of the others they have tabled. These amendments would ensure that time limits are introduced to speed up the process, that the chair of the IBCA is a High Court judge or equivalent and that support and assistance for applicants is mandatory.
Time limits are critical to ensure there are no further delays in compensation. There is nothing like a deadline to focus minds. Amendment 119CA requires the scheme to be set up within three months of the Bill becoming law and it is vital that interim payments are made well before that. With reportedly two deaths a week of those infected, they cannot come soon enough. I hear why the Minister wishes to widen the pool of applicants to chair the IBCA and am pleased to hear that some of the infected blood community will be on the interview panel. However, in my view and that of the community, the Government should accept Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation for a judge-led IBCA. With horror stories emerging of experiments on innocent schoolboys, rebuilding trust with the community is imperative and only a High Court judge would signal that commitment. Their impartiality and objectivity are unquestioned, with no risk of conflict of interest. It would powerfully reflect the status and credibility of the IBCA, underlining its independence. Amendments 121B and 121G provide for such an appointment.
The infected blood community must be assured they will have the support and assistance they need under the scheme. Amendment 119T amends the Government’s power to secure such support to a duty to do so.
Other issues of significance need to be covered. Transparency is fundamental to restoring trust. Sir Brian recommended that expert panels work as part of the scheme. Instead, we have an expert panel working for the Government. Apart from the terms of reference, we still know nothing about its members or its meetings. Sir Brian also advised that the scheme is accountable to Parliament. Instead, its reporting line is to the Secretary of State or the Cabinet Office Minister. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will explain the reason for that. Given the growing evidence of cover-ups, surely transparency should be the hallmark of all the proposals.
Sir Brian emphasised that the principles of fairness, accessibility and efficiency should be at the heart of the process. I therefore support Amendment 119BA. The IBCA must have regard to those principles.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments, which reflect the inquiry’s interim recommendations and, most importantly, the needs of the infected and affected survivors. Redress for the injustice they have endured must be the bedrock of the  Government’s proposals. Many of the community are with us today or watching from home. We cannot let them down again.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for meeting many of us in many different meetings between Committee and Report; I suspect there may be some more meetings to come. I have a number of amendments. For the record, my amendments to the government amendments are Amendments 119D, 119HA, 119K, 119M, 119P, 119T, 119U, 119V, 119X, 119Y, 121B, 121C and 121D. I also have Amendments 119YB, 119YC, 163 and 166.
Following discussions with various members of the infected blood community, I want to make a brief point about the approach in amendments laid by the Government. In Committee, the Minister said:
“The Government’s intention, therefore, is to bring forward an amendment on Report which will correct these two deficiencies”—
that he had outlined—
“and add further standard provisions to ensure a more complete legal framework when setting up an ALB”.
He went to explain that he was going to engage with us, and we are very grateful for that. He went on:
“That drafting is not yet complete. One of the main reasons for this—which I personally felt strongly about—was that we should use this Committee stage as an opportunity for a general debate on the infected blood scandal and, in advance of Report, for the Government to be made aware of the views expressed … around the Chamber”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 833.]
I thank the noble Earl for that comment, and I think he has certainly got our views.
However, instead of one amendment covering two deficiencies and a more complete legal framework, the Government laid nearly 40 amendments within the last 10 days without any equivalent to an Explanatory Memorandum or a long letter to explain their thinking. I accept that there was an explanatory statement under most of the amendments, but I have been operating two sets of the amendment booklet just to try to work out what on earth has been happening here.
The real problem is that, while we express general views in Committee, we are now being asked to vote—or not—on really fine detail, which I think many Members have been struggling with, just to get amendments laid. That is why there are 67 amendments in this one group this afternoon.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Meacher, set out why the infected blood community is concerned that there is not enough detail to give them confidence, despite the Government moving forward a bit. I just wonder if the Minister is open to a meeting, because I think we may be able to move further forward, particularly on the issue of interim payments that would satisfy both noble Lords and the wider community.
The noble Earl explained why the Government do not support Sir Brian’s approach to interim payments. He went into a lot more detail in a private meeting, for which I am grateful, but this week—or was it last week?—the Paymaster-General told the Commons that interim payments would be made through the existing schemes to the estates of those eligible for interim payment, where the deceased was registered with a current support scheme or one of its predecessors.  While those in the infected blood community are content with this, they are still very concerned about the lack of timescale on interim payments where the deceased meets the criteria and the need for an assurance of one month, as we originally proposed. If it cannot be one month, we should have some idea of the timing.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the two-tier system, where those who have not yet had interim payments but are known in the system are different from those who are not yet known. I think the community understands that as well. The victims also need reassurance where the government amendments refer to “may” rather than “must”. I know that there are some reasons for that, but, in the meetings with the community, the Paymaster-General may have to explain some of those reasons. Again, this is about rebuilding the confidence that he spoke so movingly about at the start.
The detail of the government amendments has been met with bemusement and anger by many of the community. It is partly about the timescales. I think the House is grateful that the Government are accepting Amendment 119CA from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but there is still no framework and no idea about tariffs. Worse, the threats to the victims and their families of this scheme remain. One widow told me that she was concerned that widows and children will end up worse off under the scheme than currently. So where is an impact assessment, as current payments may be stopped and there is no outline about what the tariff is? Somebody could end up with a proposal that is considerably less but has many years still to live, so how will they be protected from this happening?
Will recipients be asked to pay back support—“benefits” to you and me—that families relied on after their loved ones became infected and needed to be nursed and cared for by family members? Jobs and houses were lost and, frankly, we know that benefits have not been generous either. That is in the nature of benefits, but many people have been living this way for 30 or 40 years—now approaching 50 years for some. It would be egregious if those families were to receive compensation that immediately went to pay back decades of benefits. Can the Minister confirm that this will not happen? This is part of my Amendment 119HA, as an outline for framework tariffs and a clear statement that families will not have to pay back benefits. By the way, my amendments follow recommendations 6 and 8 in the interim report from Sir Brian, which was published nearly a year ago now.
I also have other amendments trying to give clarity for the position of the IB victims and their families. For example, there has been a lot of discussion with the Horizon postmaster victims about legal support. Will there be legal support for these families? My Amendment 119V says that they should have the option of that legal support, including people who have been supporting them at the inquiry and other places. That is not retrospective payment. It would be continuing support in the future, so that they can negotiate with the scheme.
My Amendment 121B refers to the appointment of a High Court judge as chair. I am grateful for the points that the noble Earl has made, but there is still no timescale and that remains a key issue. Could he  explain to the House exactly why, and perhaps unpack a little more about whether the chair should be a judge or even a High Court judge, which is very much what the infected blood community wants?
Finally, I have laid Amendment 119YC, which uses the principle helpfully offered by the Government for their own amendment for the infected blood compensation body, to probe whether now is the time for a truly independent compensation authority overall. This body would act as the manager of all compensation schemes for victims of failures of public bodies. We do not have time this evening to discuss this in any detail, but it is appalling that we have the infected blood scandal scheme —still not sorted after over 40 years—the postmaster Horizon scheme, the Windrush scheme, the Grenfell disaster, the sodium valproate scandal, the vaginal mesh scandal and many others. The one thing common to all of these is that no Government, of any colour, have acted fairly or with reasonable speed to resolve the remedies for all these victims. Perhaps now is the time to begin that debate—not tonight, but at this time.

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill: I join other noble Lords and Baronesses in paying tribute to my noble friend, who has been extremely generous with his time in meetings. I am quite certain that he personally has been pushing in the direction that has led to really major progress. I declare an interest as a former Secretary of State and therefore a witness to the Langstaff inquiry.
The three months is excellent; the shadow organisation set up before the final report is good; the shadow CEO is excellent. I am interested in Amendment 119HA, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Like her, I would like the reassurance sought in her proposed new subsection (2):
“In assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past support payments”.
The structures of the tariff-based compensation and so forth seem right and sensible. If we can have reassurance on that also, it would be very helpful.
The major item in the noble Baroness’s amendment is one that sets off tremendous alarm bells in the former Chief Secretary lobe—or half—of my brain. The idea of letting the chair set the tariffs, even with these structures around them, would have been very alarming to me, as a former Chief Secretary, and would be alarming to any future person who has to be accountable for public expenditure.
None the less, I still hesitate on it, because every noble Lord has spoken about the requirement to rebuild trust, and my noble friend himself began his speech with that. If it were possible to provide criteria for the payments such that the chair was enabled to be independent within those criteria, that would rebuild trust in a formidable way. I would be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on that.
Rebuilding trust is the primary task, as it has been among the terrible casualties of this disaster—trust in the state, trust in the NHS and doctors, trust in everybody. Trust in Ministers, of course, has been severely damaged and we may have to take exceptional steps in this really unparalleled scale of disaster to rebuild that trust. Precedent is always a terrible weapon to deploy against anything, but one hopes that there would be a few  precedents for disasters on this scale in the future. I would like to probe my noble friend a little further on that, but I end by thanking him again. I was privileged to work with him as a colleague in the past, and it is no surprise to those of us who have worked with him that he has been not only efficient but empathetic and careful, in the best sense of the word, in his dealings certainly with me and, I suspect, with other Members of this House as well.

Baroness Featherstone: My Lords, as some of your Lordships will know, I declare an interest as my nephew died aged 35. He was a haemophiliac, a twin and my sister’s son. He left a 10 month-old baby daughter. I too thank the noble Earl for being so sincere about this. He is one of the first people I have heard on the government side who actually gets it and understands the agony that the community has been through over the last 40 years—so I thank him for that.
I will speak briefly to a couple of amendments. With Amendment 119PA, we are concerned that infected and affected people who may want to appeal against a decision on compensation will not be able to go to a separate body to appeal, as Sir Brian Langstaff recommended in his report. If Sir Brian’s recommendations are ignored, people will have to seek to reverse a decision through the First-tier Tribunal, as is the case at the moment. They are concerned about that because the First-tier Tribunal is not specialised in infected blood and has a whole host of other things to deal with, such as PIP and housing appeals. The process will be very difficult.
Almost all the infected blood compensation appeals will be based on a factual appeal and not on a point of law. It is going to be impossible to dispute any decisions that are made. The concern is that, if the Government go down this route, there will effectively be no appeal process and applications will fail. My Amendment 119PA is about ensuring that appeals are made to the High Court or the Court of Session rather than the First-tier Tribunal.
I am very glad that the noble Earl opened on the issue of trust, as many noble Lords have raised this. There is such deep suspicion and mistrust on behalf of the community. They want the person considering appeals to be independent. They do not want the Government to be involved, because trust has been lost. We all have to recognise that the infected and affected community literally do not trust the Government because they have been pushed from pillar to post. I have been campaigning on this with my sister for years. They have been treated, quite frankly, as an annoyance when they have talked to the health officials or Ministers available to them. They have been treated as supplicants and lied to over and over again. I am afraid that trust is really far gone, as we have discussed in the past.
My Amendment 121GA is about the formation of the body. The chair needs to be a High Court judge or a judge of the Court of Session. We want the other non-executive members to be appointed by the chair, and the chair to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. If the chair is appointed by the Government, that again raises the issue of mistrust.
I welcome the Minister saying that four of the other non-executive members—I have numbers, but the point is the principle—should be people affected or infected by blood contamination or people representing such issues, and they should be from all four home nations. Without that commitment to the inclusion of the community there will be no trust, so I very much welcome that.

Baroness Sanderson of Welton: I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced this debate. I will speak briefly to the government amendments. Like others, I was disappointed to see the three-month time limit removed, but I appreciate the practical caveats that my noble friend the Minister has raised. I genuinely do not think this is a delaying tactic. He clearly appreciates why some reassurance on timelines is necessary.
In that same spirit, I would like to raise one further matter on the expert group. It will provide advice to the compensation authority and will help develop the framework for compensation. In his letter before Report, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged the need for greater transparency in relation to this group, and that the Government would therefore publish the terms of reference. They have now done this, and we are very grateful. However, the membership has been redacted, which has quite reasonably upset many of the infected and affected. I am sure my noble friend can see why people are dismayed that the names of the legal and clinical experts have been kept secret. I know that people will be very keen to understand why this has happened.
I can conclude only that this is an incredibly sensitive area; we know that. I appreciate that the group has attracted some controversy, not least because of the chair’s connections with Bayer, although no one doubts his personal integrity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, has just said very powerfully, the infected and affected have been deceived and misled for more than a quarter of a century. As with other national scandals, the cover-up is at least as bad as than the original offence, if not worse, so transparency is obviously key.
To reiterate, it is understandable that people will view this body with distrust if they do not know who is sitting on it. These are people who will be making decisions on their futures and the futures of their families. Given everything that they have been through, I do not think it is fair or acceptable. We all hope that we are reaching the end of a very long road, and it would not be right for all those infected and affected to face another hurdle or to have to fight another fight.
That is the moral point; I have one practical point. My noble friend the Minister has made it very clear that he would like the infected and affected to have a role in the compensation authority and that this will be critical. I completely agree with him, but anyone taking part from that community would expect, and no doubt want, to be accountable to their peers, even if they knew that meant there could be some difficult moments in the future. It would certainly be very hard for them to take on that role in secret. That would mean that we would end up in a position with one rule for the experts and one rule for those affected. That would be a very difficult position to be in. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could tell us why this anonymity has been allowed and whether the Government will consider lifting it, given the circumstances.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the extremely sensitive way in which he has been open to discussions at all times. I know that he has met with many of us individually.
As noble Lords have heard, there was an error with the clerical system, so my name was added to a government amendment; I think the Public Bill Office was overloaded. There is much to commend in the government amendment, but I am not supporting it because I have put my name to amendments to it. I put my name to a lot of the amendments. Others have spoken very clearly to all those amendments.
There seems to be a problem with the government amendments, which is the word “may”. Reading through, one sometime feels that word should become “must”. It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister on why some of the “mays” are not becoming “musts”. The “must” really makes things happen.
Compensation is long overdue. I remind the House that it was in May 1975, nearly 50 years ago, that the WHO expressed serious concern at the international plasma trade. There has been an enormous erosion of trust, grief and anguish. I even worry when people talk about rebuilding trust, because I think we have to stop it being eroded. From the explanations that I have heard outside this Chamber from the noble Earl, I can see how the Government are really hoping to stop the ongoing erosion of trust. That has to happen before you can start to rebuild it.
The inquiry led by Sir Brian Langstaff made clear recommendations about interim payments and the way a compensation scheme should be managed in the future. I am glad the Government accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, which requires a stated time of implementation within three months of the Bill passing. It is essential that the details of all these processes are looked at very carefully so that they do not leave anyone feeling that anything has been kicked into the long grass yet again. Support and assistance will be essential. That seems like a time when “may” should be changed into “must”, as in Amendment 119T. The interim payments must be made within one month of the Bill passing.
On a High Court judge being the appointed chair, I know the Government have said that they want to keep the options open and somebody excellent may come forward. Somebody may, and they could certainly serve on the board, but, of all the skills that a High Court judge has, they need to be seen to be there to oversee the infected blood compensation authority.
On that authority having among its executive members those infected—involving the infected blood community —I simply reiterate the point that those people will need great support, because it will be extremely difficult for them on that board with some of the decisions that they will have to take and some of the difficulties lying ahead. On the selection process, I hope that the support is adequately available and that not too much falls on the shoulders of any one person.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: Perhaps I may add something about High Court judges, having been one myself. It may not be necessary to have a sitting High  Court judge, because there are a number of recently retired High Court judges who would be entirely suitable. However, it needs to be a High Court judge who has tried medical cases. I add the fact that many family judges try medical cases quite as much as civil judges. Let us not necessarily be tied to an existing High Court judge.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, this is my amendment, so I think my job is to bring this—

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, the noble Baroness has already spoken, so it is not appropriate for her to continue.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the infected blood scandal is an appalling injustice. We in the Labour Party want to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently, with guarantees of no further delays. Campaigning and advocacy organisations, alongside the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood, have worked tirelessly to help secure justice.
At Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons, the Government lost a vote on an amendment in the name of the right honourable Dame Diana Johnson MP. The vote was a remarkable victory for victims of the infected blood scandal, and it was a victory for Diana Johnson. The Government are now obliged to do the right thing and take the steps necessary to bring forward a final compensation scheme urgently—the noble Earl has spoken to this. The Government have already confirmed that they fully accept that there is a moral case for compensation, while the Chancellor has said:
“This has been going on for far too long and … justice delayed is justice denied”.
We welcome that the Government have finally accepted the need to bring forward a compensation body promptly, as evidenced to some extent by the new Report stage amendments we are debating in this group.
However, adding a fixed timeline to the Bill is essential to help finally to give those who have suffered for so long the reassurance that they should soon get the compensation they deserve. My Amendment 119CA will amend the Government’s Amendment 119C, reinstating the three-month time period that was in the original new clause, currently Clause 40, added in the Commons.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We have had very many meetings about this issue. I think he said he would not move government Amendment 157CA, which was a possible compromise that he put forward at one point. I absolutely agree with the noble Earl’s point about the need to work collaboratively with the victims community to re-establish trust as far as possible. Trust has been a theme running through this debate.
The Government have laid around 40 amendments in this group, which has a total of 67 amendments. A number of noble Lords have spoken in detail to their amendments—I will not even attempt to address  all the individual points that have been raised, but I will pick up two. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is proposing to move any amendments to a vote—she is nodding her head, and it may well be Amendment 119HA that she presses. If she does, I am afraid we will abstain. That was our position before going into this debate, but I was reinforced in that view when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, speak to that amendment. He is a former Secretary of State, and he presented to the Langstaff inquiry. His and my concern was the excessive prescription of the way to proceed in Amendment 119HA, so I give the noble Baroness due notice of our view on that amendment.
I will summarise by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson: “We all hope that we are reaching the end of a very long road”. I understand that there have been many decades of hurt and distrust, but we want to—and do—believe that the Government are doing this in good faith. We will certainly do everything we can to use the time available, as the Bill continues to pass through this House, to look at the detail and continue to engage with the Minister, who introduced his amendments and I think has gone some way to re-establishing trust with the affected community. I very much hope that that continues to develop.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed, both today and during our previous discussions on this important topic. The moving statements we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill have been a true measure of the gravity of the infected blood scandal and its far-reaching impacts.
I will address the amendments spoken to in this debate, starting with Amendment 119HA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can today give her an assurance that the Government’s intention, via regulations, is to establish a tariff-based compensation scheme, and that people who are infected and affected will be eligible for compensation under the scheme. The regulations will provide clarity on what the scheme comprises.
We recognise that it is also important that an arm’s-length body is functionally independent. In common with Sir Brian Langstaff, we view this as critical for building trust with the infected blood community. However, there is an important principle here around maintaining government accountability. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave, whose comments I appreciated, referred to this. The Government simply must hold responsibility for overseeing the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, and it would not be appropriate for the rates of compensation to be set by the chair of the IBCA. Instead, the chair will hold an important role in the delivery of the scheme, making sure that the right people receive the right compensation and ensuring support for those who access it, against the parameters set out in legislation.
To address a further point in the noble Baroness’s amendment, those details are being informed by the expert group of clinical, legal and social care experts appointed in January to assist the Government in responding to the inquiry recommendations—and I shall refer to that group again in a moment.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the selection of a chair for the IBCA, I gave reasons earlier why, although we are entirely open to the suggestion that the chair of the IBCA should be a High Court judge or, indeed, a retired judge, we may need to allow for the possibility that no judge will be available or willing to occupy that post. We want the right person in place as expeditiously as is proper. What is most important in that connection is that the IBCA is operationally and functionally independent and seen to be so, and the way in which we are framing the legislation provides for exactly that.
The government amendments are clear that a final UK-wide compensation scheme is being established, distinct from previous support schemes. The details of how payments are to be made will necessarily be set out in regulations. In any event, I can now confirm to the House that it is not the Government’s intention to deduct any past support or ex gratia payments, excluding any interim compensation payments, from the final compensation payments made by the infected blood compensation scheme. I hope that that provides the noble Baroness with some welcome reassurance on the points that she raised.
As I said earlier, I am not in the business of prolonging people’s uncertainty unnecessarily. I understand that the infected blood community and Parliament are keen for transparency on the Government’s intentions in regard to the compensation scheme. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson has rightly raised, there have been concerns about the anonymity of the expert group —and I have listened to those concerns. The Government took the decision not to publish the names of the expert group members alongside the terms of reference to safeguard the privacy and the ability of the experts to continue their front-line clinical roles while advising on government policy. However, once their initial work has concluded, the Government will ensure that the identities of the experts are disclosed.
Additionally, in the spirit of transparency, the Government will commit to publish the compensation tariffs when they are available, ahead of secondary legislation. I hope that my commitment to these actions today will provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, with confidence not after all to press her amendment when it is reached. The Government amendments as drafted provide workable and appropriate legal powers to establish a compensation scheme in a way that is deliverable by government—and I fear that, should the noble Baroness’s well-intentioned amendments be moved and carried, this will simply not be deliverable for the Government and could ultimately delay the payment of compensation.
I turn to Amendment 119BA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We absolutely respect the principles that the noble Baroness has raised, and the need for the infected blood compensation scheme to be efficient, fair and accessible to deliver justice effectively. It is our sincere intention to deliver this and put the needs of victims at the forefront of the operation. In saying that, I should add, as she will understand, that there are clearly many different needs and perspectives to take into account. The imperative for the new infected blood compensation authority to act effectively and efficiently towards that aim is already provided for  in paragraph 11 of the new schedule to Part 3, as set out in government Amendment 121A. Creating more statutory provision around the exercise of functions is, I can assure the noble Baroness, not required.
I move to amendments that deal with adhering to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report on compensation. These are Amendment 119EA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and Amendments 119D, 119E, 119K, 119M and 119U, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Ministers are clear that recommendations of the infected blood inquiry should form the basis of the government response. In January this year, an expert group was appointed to provide technical assistance in understanding how the inquiry’s recommendations could work in practice. I assure the House that the expert group is intended to build on and not replace in any way the recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. This will help to ensure that the Government are able to respond to recommendations in a manner that reflects the impact that the scandal has had on the lives of individuals, while also considering what implications that has for delivery.
There are some specific instances where we must divert from recommendations in order to make the compensation scheme deliverable for the Government and to ensure that payments reach those eligible as swiftly as possible. I emphasise again that we are committed to working with the infected blood community to ensure that the compensation scheme meets its members’ individual needs. However, on reflection, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that a formal consultation with legal representatives across the UK would lead to one sure outcome, which would be to delay the process of establishing the scheme. We do not consider that it is required.
The Government are acutely aware of the importance of establishing an accessible and sensitive compensation scheme for victims of inflected blood. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Brinton, for their Amendments 119MA, 119V and 119VA, which speak to the support for claimants who would be accessing the scheme. First, I want to be clear that the infected blood compensation authority will provide support to applicants and, within this support, will consider the provision of legal support services. The government amendment allows for that support to be provided for victims, and the House can expect the Government to work with the infected blood compensation authority on the support that is required.
The government amendments set the legal framework required to enable the Government to move quickly to establish a compensation scheme; they do not limit in any way the procedure for applications. However, the operation of a scheme must be efficient and user-friendly. In-person hearings, as proposed in one of the amendments, could extend the timeline for payments for individuals. We will need to consider that idea carefully, alongside the delivery of the scheme as a whole.
The Government also recognise the benefits of providing legal assistance to individuals accessing the compensation scheme. I shall take that point away with me, in the way that I have just indicated—and I refer noble Lords to government Amendment 119S in this connection.
Leaving aside the fact that it would be undesirable to commit in this legislation to a panel of specific law firms to undertake government-funded work, it is important that any support provided is well considered against two principal benchmarks: first, that it provides the most benefit for claimants and, secondly, that it is consistent with the appropriate management of public funds.
I turn to Amendments 119CB, 119DA and 119DB, which introduce the word “harmed” into the government amendments that identify who may be eligible for compensation within regulations. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the existing wording is sufficiently wide to capture all those infected and affected by the treatment of infected blood, and the additional drafting that she has suggested is not required.
Amendments 119J, 119P and 119T would change “may” to “must”. These amendments could inadvertently limit the breadth of what could be done under a general power and are therefore not considered appropriate at this stage. This is about having a process that is efficient for victims and that also allows for oversight of public money. I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this issue further. Amendment 119P is a good example. If we were to change “may” to “must”, as that amendment proposes, it would be, as it were, dictating to the IBCA what it has to do. We are keen not to do that where we do not have to, because of the need to give the IBCA autonomy. I give that as an example.
Similarly, the deletion proposed in Amendment 119LA should not be made, in our view. It is absolutely not intended to unfairly restrict those who are eligible to apply to the scheme from being able to do so. All that this does is to provide the Government of the day with the ability and flexibility to impose time limits, where these are required, to ensure that the scheme design is fit for purpose. The regulations relating to payments will be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure, and Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise these provisions.
I turn to Amendment 119PA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The government amendments make provision for internal reviews of compensation decisions by the new infected blood compensation authority and for related rights of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Further appeals against First-tier Tribunal decisions are possible. I reassure the noble Baroness in regard to that amendment that the First-tier Tribunal considers findings of fact to correct any decisions that are referred to it, and there is an established route for further appeals from First-tier Tribunal decisions—the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court—so there is no need, in our view, to depart from that as the amendment proposes. It is our judgment that utilising existing tribunal systems is the best way to provide a fair and accessible appeal route without any unnecessary delay to the establishment of the compensation scheme. We have given this careful thought and it is our judgment that the interests of victims will be served better in this way.
Amendment 121H, which would provide that all non-executive members are appointed by the chair, rather than initial non-executives being appointed by the Secretary of State, would unnecessarily delay the establishment of the ALB. I do not think it is at all desirable, and I remind the noble Baroness of what I emphasised earlier about the way we propose to use the ALB’s committees and sub-committees.
I want to provide clarity to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the status of the £100,000 payments to the estates of deceased infected individuals registered with current and previous support schemes, as introduced by the government amendment. It is the Government’s view that the word “interim” is not required, because these payments will be made through the infected blood support schemes, and the infected blood compensation authority has all the legal powers required to make any further payments under the final compensation scheme.
Finally, let me address Amendment 119YC in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank her for her amendment and I note that her intention is to open a debate on the potential benefits of a single body to administer compensation in cases of failures by public bodies. The Government firmly believe that access to redress is fundamental in upholding justice and fairness in our society. Individuals must have avenues to seek recourse when they have been wronged or harmed. That is precisely what we are seeking to achieve today for the victims of infected blood. However, we must be cautious in considering a body which sets up a uniform system for redress and compensation. Circumstances which lead to the need for redress can be vastly different, and any schemes must have the capacity to reflect those differences to ensure that impacted individuals can receive the best possible redress. Therefore, while there is merit in continuing discussion on this area, and I will be glad to do so, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making clear her view that this Bill is not the correct vehicle for pursuing the establishment of such a body.
Today’s debate is an important step for victims of infected blood. My firm desire is for us now to work together to ensure that every provision and every commitment made in this House is deliverable and meaningful to those people who desperately need compensation. I am very happy to have further meetings with noble Lords. I therefore earnestly entreat them to hear and embrace the steps we are taking today and have confidence in the Government’s intentions. The government amendments provide the appropriate and workable legal framework we need to get on with this very important work and I hope the House will support us in progressing it.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, the lead amendment in this group is Amendment 119BA, which I happened to table. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments at great length, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Featherstone, who made very powerful speeches. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the very considerable number of assurances he has given this House. They will, I know, provide tremendous reassurance to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, who have been  waiting, as I said before, for a very long time for some action; I think they can now expect compensation quickly after 20 May. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 119BA (to Amendment 119B) withdrawn.
Amendment 119B agreed.

Amendment 119C

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119C: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause— “Infected blood compensation scheme(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must by regulations establish a scheme (“the infected blood compensation scheme”) for making payments to eligible persons.(2) “Eligible persons” means such persons within subsection (3) as the regulations provide are to be eligible persons.(3) The persons within this subsection are persons who—(a) have been infected as a result of being treated with blood, blood products or tissue,(b) have been infected as a result of another person being treated with blood, blood products or tissue, or(c) have been affected by another person being infected as described in paragraph (a) or (b).(4) The regulations may define an eligible person by reference to matters including (but not limited to)—(a) the kind of infection;(b) the duration or effect of an infection;(c) when the treatment occurred;(d) where the treatment was given;(e) who gave the treatment;(f) whether a person was treated with blood, blood products or tissue;(g) in the case of a person within subsection (3)(b), how the person was infected and their connection with the person who was treated;(h) in a case of a person within subsection (3)(c), how the person has been affected and their connection with the person who has been infected.(5) The regulations must provide for payments under the scheme to be made by, and the scheme to be otherwise administered by, the IBCA.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause provides for the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office to establish an infected blood compensation scheme by regulations.

Earl Howe: I beg to move.

Amendment 119CA (to Amendment 119C)

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
119CA: In subsection (1) after “regulations” insert “within three months of the passing of this Act”
Amendment 119CA (to Amendment 119C) agreed.
Amendments 119CB to 119EA (as amendments to Amendment 119C) not moved.
Amendment 119C, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 119F

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119F: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Payments(1) The amount of a payment under the infected blood compensation scheme is to be determined in accordance with regulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme).(2) The regulations may make provision for the amount payable to eligible persons—(a) to be a specified amount;(b) to be an amount within a specified range;(c) not to exceed a specified amount.(3) The regulations may make provision—(a) for payments to be made as a lump sum or periodically;(b) for payments to be held on trust;(c) for interest to be payable on payments;(d) for the amount of any periodic payment to be increased to take account of changes in the value of money.(4) The regulations may make provision for payments to be made subject to conditions.(5) The regulations may make provision for payments under the scheme to be repaid to the IBCA (in whole or in part) in specified circumstances.(6) In this section “specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause makes provision about the kinds of payments that may be provided for by the infected blood compensation scheme.

Earl Howe: I beg to move.
Amendments 119G and 119H (as amendments to Amendment 119F) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 119HA (to Amendment 119F)

Baroness Brinton: Moved by Baroness Brinton
119HA: Leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—“(1) The amount of a payment under the infected blood compensation scheme is to be determined in accordance with a framework of tariff-based compensation for eligible infected and affected persons, at rates which broadly take account of but are not limited by current practice in courts and tribunals across the UK and sums payable in other UK compensation schemes, and allowing an assessed basis for defined financial losses.(1A) The rates of compensation in the framework under subsection (1) must be based on the advice of the independent clinical and legal panels and set by the Chair, adopting the measures set out in Recommendation 5 of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s Second Interim Report.(1B) The awards which may be claimed under the tariff- based compensation under subsection (1) framework must be as defined at Recommendation 6 of the Infected Blood Inquiry Second Interim Report. (2) In assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past support payments made under other support schemes or their predecessors.”

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I am very grateful for everything the Minister has said to the House, including going through all the amendments in detail, and in particular for his offer to meet. I thank all the infected blood community organisations and people who have been working with many Peers around the House for their contributions. Six petitions on infected blood compensation were presented in the House of Commons today. That is how important this is. They are very keen that my Amendment 119HA, which summarises the key issues in Sir Brian Langstaff’s interim report, is voted on and those issues heard. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 67, Noes 175.

Amendment 119HA disagreed.
Amendments 119J and 119K (as amendments to Amendment 119F) not moved.
Amendment 119F agreed.

Amendment 119L

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119L: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Applications and procedureRegulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme) may deal with the procedure for the making and deciding of applications for payments under the infected blood compensation scheme and, in particular, may—(a) impose time limits for making an application or taking other steps;(b) make provision about evidence.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause provides that regulations may make provision about applications under the infected blood compensation scheme and other procedural matters.

Earl Howe: I beg to move.
Amendments 119LA to 119MA (as amendments to Amendment 119L) not moved.
Amendment 119L agreed.

Amendment 119N

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119N: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Reviews and appeals(1) Regulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme)—(a) may make provision for the IBCA to review decisions taken under the infected blood compensation scheme;(b) must confer a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision taken under the scheme.(2) If the regulations make provision under subsection (1)(a), they may provide for the right of appeal to be exercisable only if the IBCA has reviewed the decision.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause provides that regulations may make provision for reviews of, and appeals against, decisions made under the infected blood compensation scheme.

Earl Howe: I beg to move.
Amendments 119P and 119PA (as amendments to Amendment 119N) not moved.
Amendment 119N agreed.

Amendments 119Q and 119R

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119Q: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Information: infected blood compensation scheme(1) The IBCA may provide information to another person, and a person may provide information to the IBCA, for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme.  (2) The IBCA may by notice in writing require a person to provide information to the IBCA for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme.(3) If a person fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2), the IBCA may apply to the appropriate court for an order requiring the person to comply with the notice.(4) The information referred to in this section may comprise or include personal data.(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed apart from this section.(6) Except as provided by subsection (7), a disclosure of information authorised by or required under this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(7) This section does not authorise or require the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the powers conferred and duties imposed by this section).(8) In this section—“the appropriate court” means—(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the High Court;(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session;“personal data”, “processing” and“the data protection legislation” have the meanings given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause enables the IBCA and other persons to provide information to each other for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme and also enables the IBCA to require other persons to provide information for those purposes.
119R: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Duty to co-operate with the IBCA(1) Each relevant person must co-operate with the IBCA on any matter connected with the making of payments to persons in connection with those persons, or other persons, being treated with infected blood, infected blood products or infected tissue.(2) The relevant persons are—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Minister for the Cabinet Office;(c) a Special Health Authority established under section 28 of the National Health Service Act 2006;(d) the Welsh Ministers;(e) a National Health Service trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(f) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(g) the Scottish Ministers;(h) a person who has at any time been appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 28(4)(d) of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13) to manage a scheme made under that section;(i) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland;(j) the Regional Business Services Organisation established by section 14 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c.1 (N.I.));  (k) any other persons specified as relevant persons in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office for the purposes of this section.(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(k)—(a) may not specify a Welsh body as a relevant person unless the Welsh Ministers consent;(b) may not specify a Scottish body as a relevant person unless the Scottish Ministers consent;(c) may not specify a Northern Ireland body as a relevant person unless the Department of Health in Northern Ireland consents.(4) In subsection (3)—“Welsh body” means—(a) a devolved Welsh authority as defined in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;(b) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a);“Scottish body” means—(a) a person who is a part of the Scottish Administration;(b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998);(c) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a) or (b);“Northern Ireland body” means—(a) a Northern Ireland department;(b) a public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998);(c) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a) or (b).”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause requires the persons listed in subsection (2) to co-operate with the IBCA on any matter connected with the making of payments to persons in connection with those persons, or other persons, being treated with infected blood, infected blood products or infected tissue.
Amendments 119Q and 119R agreed.

Amendment 119S

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119S: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Provision of support and assistance(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for the provision of support and assistance to applicants (or potential applicants) for compensation under the infected blood compensation scheme.(2) The arrangements may be for the provision of support and assistance by the IBCA or any other person.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause provides a power for the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance to applicants and potential applicants under the infected blood compensation scheme.

Earl Howe: I beg to move.
Amendments 119T and 119U (as amendments to Amendment 119S) not moved.

Amendment 119V (to Amendment 119S)

Baroness Brinton: Tabled by Baroness Brinton
119V: After subsection (2) insert—“(3) Applicants must have the option of access to independent legal help for the purposes of making their claim and any appeal.(4) The firms of solicitors who have represented core participants in the Infected Blood Inquiry must be the solicitors from which applicants may choose representation, with fees payable capped at public service rates.(5) Such legal fees must be paid by the IBCA and not the applicant and cannot be deducted from any award.”
Amendment 119VA (as an amendment to Amendment 119V) not moved.
Amendment 119V (to Amendment 119S) not moved.
Amendment 119S agreed.

Amendment 119W

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119W: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must make arrangements for the personal representatives of a qualifying infected person (in their capacity as such) to receive a payment of £100,000.(2) A “qualifying infected person” is a deceased person—(a) who was registered as an infected person under an infected blood support scheme, or with a relevant organisation, before 17 April 2024, or(b) whose death was registered as the death of an infected person under an infected blood support scheme, or with a relevant organisation, before 17 April 2024,and to or in respect of whom no payment has been made under the Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme.(3) An “infected blood support scheme” means—(a) the England Infected Blood Support Scheme established under section 2 of, and paragraph 7C of Schedule 1 to, the National Health Service Act 2006,(b) the Wales Infected Blood Support Scheme established under sections 1 to 3 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006,(c) the Scottish Infected Blood Support Scheme established partly under section 28 of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13), and(d) the Infected Blood Payment Scheme for Northern Ireland established under section 3 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.(4) A “relevant organisation” means—(a) the Caxton Foundation (charity number 1142529),(b) the Eileen Trust (charity number 1028027),(c) the Macfarlane Trust (charity number 298863),(d) the Macfarlane (Special Payments) Trust established on 29 January 1990,(e) the Macfarlane (Special Payments) (No. 2) Trust established on 3 May 1991,(f) MFET Limited (company number 07121661), and(g) the Skipton Fund Limited (company number 5084964).  (5) A payment is made in respect of a deceased person under the Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme if a payment under that scheme is made to the person’s personal representatives (in their capacity as such) or the person’s bereaved partner.(6) The Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme means the scheme of that name administered by the persons who administer the infected blood support schemes (whether or not in conjunction with other persons).(7) The arrangements under subsection (1)—(a) must include provision about the procedure for making payments to the personal representatives of qualifying infected persons;(b) may include arrangements for one or more other persons (which may in particular include relevant persons) to administer the making of payments, in accordance with that procedure, on behalf of the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(8) The arrangements under subsection (1) may be made, in whole or in part, by exercising powers conferred on the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office apart from this section.(9) In this section—“personal representatives” , in relation to a deceased person, means the persons responsible for administering the deceased person’s estate;“relevant person” has the same meaning as in section (Duty to co-operate with the IBCA).(10) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations repeal or amend subsections (1) to (9).”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause requires the Secretary of State or the Minister of the Cabinet Office to make arrangements for the personal representatives of deceased infected persons to receive a payment of £100,000 where no interim compensation payments have been made to or in respect of those deceased persons.

Earl Howe: I beg to move.
Amendments 119X and 119Y (as amendments to Amendment 119W) not moved.
Amendment 119W agreed.

Amendment 119YA

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
119YA: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—“Information: payments to personal representatives(1) A person may provide information to—(a) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or(b) a person administering the making of payments under section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons) by virtue of section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons)(7)(b),for the purposes of any matter connected with the making of payments to personal representatives under that section.(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) may comprise or include personal data.(3) Subsection (1) does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed apart from that subsection.  (4) Except as provided by subsection (5), a disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(5) Subsection (1) does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by that subsection).(6) In this section “personal data”, “processing” and “the data protection legislation” have the meanings given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”  Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause provides that a person may provide information to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or a person administering the making of payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons on their behalf, for the purpose of any matter connected with the making of such payments.
Amendment 119YA agreed.
Amendments 119YB and 119YC not moved.
Consideration on Report adjourned.
House adjourned at 7.53 pm.